WP(C) 2177/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For appropriate writ has been sought for by the petitioner, the widow of Jogeswa r Das (since deceased), who died out of electrocution on 25.06.2001. The petiti oner has alleged culpable negligence on the part of Respondent-Board as the prox imate reason for the untimely demise of her husband. Compensation has been pray ed for on this count. I have heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Bhattach erjee, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) (hereinafter for short referred to as the Board). The pleadings of the parties project the rival stands. The petitioner has state d that her husband at the time of his death was aged about 52 years was then the only earning member of the family. On 25.06.2001 at about 4 A.M. while he was proceeding towards the paddy field for agricultural pursuits, he unfortunately c ame in touch with a live electric wire lying on the road between Bachagaon and K amalabari and being electrocuted died on the spot instantaneously. The accident was informed to the Panigaon Police Out Post, North Lakhimpur. The Officer-in-Ch arge of the said Out Post conducted an investigation. On the report to that eff ect, the Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur also caused an inquiry to be made by a jurisdictional Executive Magistrate in course of the said process. The bod y of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination at the North Lakhimpr Civ il Hospital, North Lakhimpur. According to the petitioner, the high tension elec tric wire that fell snapped in the previous night was not deactivated by the Boa rd despite its knowledge thereof and thus the accident had occurred. Being plu nged into financial distress by the sudden turn of events, the petitioner at the demise of her husband was left behind with three minor children, approached the Board on more than one occasion for adequate compensation and/or employment in the alternative. However, as the same did not meet with any response she has tu rned to this Court for redress. An amount of Rs.3 lakhs has been prayed for. The Board in its affidavit while admitting the accidental death of the petitione r’s husband attributed the same to his contact with a snapped conductor that had broken off due to short circuit that the L.T. line caused due to high winds and heavy storm in the previous night in that locality. According to it, though th e low-tension fuse removed at 11/0463 KVA sub station at Bachagaon it unfortunat ely did not deactivated the line. It averred further that the presence of the s napped conductor had not been reported to its officials at any point of time and that the petitioner’s husband therefore was negligent in coming in contact with it, for which he unfortunately died. The allegation of negligence on his part has been categorically denied. In terms of the order of this Court, the Senior Electrical Inspector, Govt. of A ssam has submitted his report on 02.05.2002 following an inquiry, which forms a part of the records. While affirming the death of the petitioner’s husband due to electrocution on 25.06.2001 at 4.30 A.M. at Bachagaon, the aforementioned Sta te authority indicated that the facts and circumstances of the incident demonstr ate that the provision of Rule 29 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 hav e been contravened by the owner of the line i.e. A.S.E.B. Whereas, Mr. Das has urged that having regard to the commodity dealt with by the Board and the liability in law cast on it, it is liable to compensate the petit ioner adequately for its established negligence in maintaining the transmission lines, Mr. Bhattacherjee has urged that as the materials on record emply testify against any deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the Board, the rel ief prayed for ought not to be granted. Mr. Bhattacherjee inter alia has also drawn the attention of this Court to the p ost mortem report to indicate the anomaly in the age of deceased as mentioned th erein in comparison to the one as referred to in the writ petition. That the petitioner’s husband had died out of electric shock in an accident on 2 5.06.2001 at 4.30 A.M. is a matter of records. It is also established that the a ccident took place as he came in touch with a live electric wire lying on the ro ad having snapped from the overhead transmission line maintained by the Board. According to it (Board) it being aware of such a possibility due to a heavy stor m in the locality in the previous night removed the low tension fuse at the rele vant sub station but inspite thereof, the transmission line did not get deactiva ted, resulting in the accident. Even if the stand of the Board, as above is taken on its face value, it is more than apparent that the necessary devices installed by it for the maintenance and supply of electricity through the relevant transmission lines over the area inv olved were apparently faulty as a result whereof, the accident had occurred. Co nsidering the nature of the calling in which the Board is engaged and the commod ity being transmitted by it, its responsibility/liability has to be construed to be in absolute terms and hence the applicability of the law of strict liability . The report of the Sr. Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam also attests the co nclusion that at all relevant times the transmission line over the area involved appliances were not fully in order. To this extent, the conclusion that the Bo ard had been negligent vis-à-vis the statutory obligation cast on it vide the In dian Electricity Rules, 1956 cannot be doubted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore the Board is to be held to be liable for negligence in ter ms of the law of strict liability. The petition is noticeably vague with regard to the number of children the decea sed had left behind as well as their age. The petitioner has mentioned that her husband was aged 52 years at the time of the accident. There is also a visible anomaly about the age of the deceased (52 years in the writ petition and 60 yea rs in the postmortem report). The fact that the deceased at the relevant point of time was the sole earning member of the family is not seriously disputed. Co mpensation in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dom inantly in the nature of a palliative and not a substitute for an identical reli ef envisaged under the common law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances in which the accident had taken place, the age of the deceased and the number o f dependents that he had left behind in the opinion of this Court compensation t o the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly . The Board would make the payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petition is allowed in the abov e terms. No costs.