WP(C) 300/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R. Adhikary, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr Sarma, learned standing counsel for the ASEB appearing for the respondent Board as well as its officials. The petitioner, by the present petition, has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh as compensat ion for the death of her minor son namely Baskel Rabha, aged about 13 years, on 22nd October 2007 around 5.30am at village Dairong Madapara caused due to electr ocution. According to the petitioner, on the fateful day when her minor son went to catch fish in the field he came into contact with a live wire lying in the f ield, resulting in severe burn injury, and though immediately shifted to the hos pital, he was declared dead. The petitioner’s further contention is that on 22nd October 2007, a FIR was lodged with the officer-in-charge of Krishnai outpost u nder the Dudhnoi police station, which was registered as Dudhnoi P.S. UD Case No .14/2007. The petitioner claims the aforesaid amount as compensation on the grou nd that the death of her minor son had caused due to the utter negligence of the respondent Board in maintaining the overhead live wire as required under the In dian Electricity Act and the rules framed there-under, thereby violating the fun damental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by th e respondent Nos.1,3,4 & 5 controverting the averments made in the writ petition , an affidavit-in-opposition enclosing a copy of the enquiry report dated 30th J une 2009 has been filed by the respondent No.2, namely the Senior Electrical Ins pector, Assam, who is the authority under Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act to make an enquiry into the alleged accident of electrocution. In the said r eport, a finding is recorded to the effect that the overhead electric line, whic h was detached from the conductor, was unsafe due to non-installation of the pro tective devices by the respondent Board. He has also found violation of Rule 29 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 by the electricity supply company, th at is, the Lower Assam Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. The recommendation for correction and sustenance thereof under the Act and rules framed therein to ensure public safety was also made. The facts leading to the death of the petitioner’s minor son, as narrated in the writ petition, has not been denied by any of the respon dents. Respondent No.2, that is, the Senior Electrical Inspector, Assam, in fact has admitted that the death was due to electrocution because of the fault of th e respondent Board in not maintaining the overhead electrical wire as required u nder the Act and rules framed there-under. During the course of argument, learned standing counsel for the respondent Board has submitted that a sum of Rs.1 lakh has already been paid to the petitioner for the death of her son due to electrocution. The respon dent Board, by paying the said amount, has in fact admitted their fault in not m aintaining the overhead electricity wire as required by law, due to the snapping of which the death of the petitioner’s minor son was caused. The petitioner lost her 13-year-old son due to the fault of the respondent Board in not maintaining the overhead electric wire as per th e provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and rules framed there-under, as is f ound by the Senior Electrical Inspector, Assam in his report dated 30th June 200 9, thereby violating the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Co nstitution, for which the petitioner has to be compensated. That being the position, the petitioner is entitled to c ompensation for the death of her son caused due to the fault of the respondent B oard, which is quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) o nly. The respondent Board is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner w ithin a period of one month from today by deducting the amount, if any, already paid. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated abo ve. No costs.