WP(C) 4887/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr J Sarma, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mrs VL Singha, lear ned State counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr D Bhattacharj ee, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioners, by present petition are claiming compensation for the d eath of petitioner No.1’s son Moni Deka in an incident occurred on 9 September 2 003 at the Bamfar village, Jagi Road in Morigaon district. According to the peti tioners, on 8 September 2003, around 9pm, while Moni Deka was coming from the Ha tiamukh village, he came in contact with a live electric wire snapped from the p ole and lying on road unattended to, and as a result of which he died due to the electrocution. The petitioners claim that as safety measures required to be tak en by the supplier namely ASEB in maintaining overhead electric lines have not b een taken, the incident had occurred. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the alleg ation that a live electric wire got snapped and lying on the ground level has be en denied. It has, however, been stated that one 11kv conductor got snapped and had fallen, for which Moni Deka came into contact with the said electric wire, which was purely an accidental in nature. The allegation of non-maintenance of e lectric overhead wire without safety measures has also been denied. The Senior Electrical Inspector, Assam, who is the authority to conduct the enquiry relating to the incident of electrocution, under Section 161 of Elec tricity Act 2003, has submitted a report dated 8 February 2010, which was produc ed before this Court by learned State counsel. From the said report, it appears that the cause of the accident was due to the detachment of the live conductor f rom pin insulator resulting in snapping of the line. A finding has also been rec orded that had appropriate safety/preventive measures been taken and had there b een regular and proper checking of the line by the owner of the overhead line, t he instant electrical accident resulting to death of the victim would not have t aken place. The senior electrical inspector had also found contravention of Rule s 29 and 91 of Indian Electricity Rules 1956, on the part of the owner of the su pply system that is ASEB. Though the finding recorded by the inspector is appelable under Section 162 of the aforesaid Act, no appeal, however, has been filed by the respondent B oard, though the finding has been recorded relating to the violation of the rule s which resulted in the electrocution accident. Such finding, therefore, attaine d finality and is to be accepted. As discussed above, clear finding has been recorded by the inspector rel ating to non-adoption of safety/preventive measures by the respondent Board in r espect of the overhead line and violation of Rules 29 & 91 of the Indian Electri city Rules, which resulted in the death of the petitioner No.1’s son and, theref ore, the respondent Board is liable to pay compensation under the public law rem edy. It appears that the petitioner No.1’ son was about 15 years old at the t ime of the accident and was helping another person in cultivation. Keeping in vi ew the aforesaid position as well as the entire facts and circumstances of the c ase, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner No.1 i s paid a compensation of Rs.1.5 lakh. Hence the respondent Board is directed to pay the said amount by means of a demand draft payable at Guwahati in the name o f petitioner No.1, within a period of two months from today. The said demand dra ft shall be deposited to the Registry of this Court with due intimation to the p etitioner No.1 and on such deposit the draft shall be handed over to the petitio ner No.1, on being identified by learned counsel. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.