WP(C) 5880/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Judicial intervention in exercise of this Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought for by the petitioners whose father had m et untimely and tragic death out of electrocution on 31/7/1980. The petitioners have alleged, belatedly though, persistent negligent and inexcusable inaction on the part of the respondent Board as the cause of action for the instant proceed ings. 2. I have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioners a nd Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (for short hereafter referred to as the Board). 3. The petitioners’ pleaded case in short is that at the relevant p oint of time, both were minors and along with other family members were solely d ependent for their sustenance on the earnings of their fathers namely Saidur Rah man Laskar (since deceased) and Sunahar Ali Laskar (since deceased) respectively as the sole bread earners. On 31/7/1980 at about 7 P.M., the overhead electric wire of the locality at a particular point snapped and lay hanging on the road. According to the petitioners, immediately thereafter the local unit of the Board was alerted for necessary repair works. However, as ill luck would have, at abo ut 9 P.M. in the said evening while their fathers were proceeding that way, thei r umbrella came in contact with the said sagging live wire as a result of which they were electrocuted and they expired on the spot. The mothers of the petition ers immediately thereafter submitted representations before the concerned State authorities for necessary steps/redressal but to no avail. Without giving up the ir cause for compensation, however, the elder brother of the writ petitioner No. 1 submitted representations for his employment so as to save the family then re eling under financial distress. Years rolled by but, according to the petitioner s, there was no response worth the name from the concerned authorities of the Go vernment as well as the Board. It was in the year 1987, that the elder brother o f writ petitioner No. 1, submitted a representation before the Executive Enginee r, Cachar Division, Silchar, reiterating the above facts and seeking appointment as a Grade IV employee under the Board. It was thereafter that in the year 2001 , the Deputy Personal Manager (IR), ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition, required the Superintending Engineer, Cachar Electrical Circle, to cause an enquiry to be made into the accident and to ascertain lapse s, if any, on the part of the Board’s officials in connection therewith. Accordi ngly, a spot verification was made and the Deputy Personal Manager, Cachar Elect rical Circle, ASEB, submitted a report substantially endorsing the facts as narr ated by the petitioners. As inspite thereof, neither the petitioners were offere d any employment under the Board nor any compensation was sanctioned, they have approached this Court for redress. 4. The respondent Board in its affidavit filed through the responde nts 2, 3 and 4 jointly has pleaded undue delay in the filing of the instant appl ication. It has also contended ignorance about the accident for 20 years asserti ng that it was only from the representation of the petitioners dated 30/1/2001 t hat the factum of the said accident had come to the knowledge of its authorities . According to it, though the incident had occurred earlier than 2001, the Board had not been informed about the accident by the petitioners or was favoured wit h the postmortem report evidencing the death of their fathers. It, however, did not disown the report submitted as above. 5. Dr. Ahmed has argued that it being evident from the pleadings of the parties as well as the report in particular of the Deputy Personal Manager, Cachar, ASEB, that the petitioners fathers died an accidental death due to unex plained negligence on the part of the officials of the Board, to effect necessar y repairing though complained of in time it is a fit case where an appropriate c ompensation be awarded against it. Dr. Ahmed has pressed into service the decisi on rendered in Ajit Deka versus Assam State Electricity Board and others, 2004 S upp. GLT 406. 6. Mr. Bhattacharjee has reiterated that the instant petition being unduly belated, the same ought not to be entertained in exercise of the Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that no report on the accident having been submitted by the Sr. Electrical Insp ector, Government of Assam, this Court ought not place reliance on the one annex ed to the writ petition. In support of his plea based on delay, Mr. Bhattacharje e has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 7/11/ 2006 in WA 206/2004, Assam State Electricity Board versus Phatik Ch. Talukdar. 7. I have extended my anxious consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. The instant petition on the face of it is unduly del ayed. The date of the accident as claimed by the petitioners is 31/7/1980. The d ocuments appended to the writ petition though include copies of representations dated 6/10/1980 submitted by the mother of the petitioner No. 1 forwarded to the concerned authority of the Board, the denial of receipt of any information to t hat effect by the Board gives rise to a disputed question of fact in this regard . It is only in the year 2001 that as required by a higher authority of the Boar d, the Superintending Engineer of the Board, Cachar Electrical Circle, got the m atter enquired following which the Deputy Personal Manager, Cachar Electrial Cir cle, submitted a report corroborating the accident that had occurred on 31/7/198 0 at 9 P.M. in course of which the fathers of the petitioners had died following electrocution. The report discloses that due to a heavy storm on 31/7/1980 at a bout 7 P.M., a branch of a mango tree located by the side of the 4 W L.T. wire h ad fallen on it as a result whereof the charged line got snapped and twisted wit h the conductor and lay hanging on the road. It further reveals that the fathers of the petitioners while passing by that way under one common umbrella, came in , touch with the live wire and were electrocuted to death. That the petitioners have neither been offered any compensation nor employment is not disputed. 8. The sequence of the facts as stated hereinabove reveals that an enquiry was caused to be made by the concerned authority of the Board into the a ccident and the report broadly authenticates the averments relating thereto as a vailable in the instant petition on oath. It is thus clear from contemporaneous documents on record that the petitioners’ fathers had died in the fateful night out of electrocution at about 9 P.M. having come in touch with a live electric w ire. 9. The writ petitioners have approached this Court within a year fr om the said report. It is not unlikely that they were under the impression that in the face of the report submitted by the officer of the Board it would take ne cessary steps to assuage their grievance. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay. 10. The facts in WA 206/2004 as above are distinguishable from those as obtain in the instant case. There though the accident had occurred in the ye ar 1982, the writ petition was filed in the year 1999. Noticeably in the said pr oceeding, the writ petitioner had approached this Court without any such support ing report. In the case in hand, the petitioners are armed with a report and tha t too of an authority of the Board. Their writ petition thus ought not to be dis lodged on the ground of delay. 11. Having regard to the facts as revealed by the report, the time l ag between the snapping of the LT wire and the accident was barely two hours. Ha ving regard to the principle of strict liability that is applicable, having rega rd to the nature of the operation in which the respondent Board is involved, it cannot be absolved of its accountability vis-à-vis the incident. In that view of the matter, considering the nature of the accident and the reason therefor it h as to be held more particularly with reference to Rule 91 of the Indian Electric ity Rules, 1956, that the Board had failed to discharge its responsibility in ma intaining the LT Electric Transmission Wire as required in law for which the acc ident had occurred. 12. This takes us to the question of quantifying the amount of compe nsation payable to the petitioners. It has been held time out of number that com pensation paid in such cases in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constituti on of India is dominantly palliative in nature and has to take a token form. The quantification, however, has to be contingent on various factors the ultimate o bjective being to provide immediate succour to the needy family. As referred to hereinabove, 30 years have passed in between. This is not however to discount th e factum of death of the fathers of the petitioners. This nevertheless would hav e a considerable relevance in ascertaining the amount of compensation. The petit ioners who at the time of the death of the fathers had been minor are adult in a ge today. Though Dr. Ahmed has submitted that the financially slender condition of the families subsist as on date, the passage of time, in the opinion of this Court, would definitely have a bearing in this regard. The materials on record a s on date are not adequate enough to precisely work out in minutest details the amount of compensation. This Court, therefore, has to resort to guess works. Hav ing regard to the totality of the circumstances as narrated above, it is of the view that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each as compensation to be paid by the Boa rd to the petitioners would meet the ends of justice at this distant point of ti me. Ordered accordingly. The respondent Board would arrange to pay the amount to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certi fied copy of this order on proper identification. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.