WP(C) 744/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PK MUSAHARY Heard Mr. Giash Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Gos wami, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the ASEB and its official respondents. Also heard Mrs. B. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on b ehalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 7. 2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been presented claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the death of petitioner’s minor son who was killed in an accident caused due to alleged n egligent act of the ASEB. It is pleaded that on 20-08-2004, when the petitioner detected some foul play and the electric wire was lying on the ground in a dang erous condition and in an unsecured position, he informed the matter to the near est office of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the ASEB 33 KV Sub-Station in the di strict of Nagaon, Assam. It was requested by the petitioner to take preventive action so that no accident could take place due to fall of the electric wire, wh ich was lying on the ground, but no action was taken by the respondent authoriti es. As a result, at around 4.30 P.M. of the same day, i.e. on 20-08-2004, while the petitioner’s son aged about 4 years was playing with some young boys, sudden ly got electric shock from the electric wire which was lying on the ground near his house and his son became unconscious and died due to electric shock on way t o hospital. 3. On being informed the police registered a U.D. Case No. 59/2004 and started investigation. The police after investigation certified that his so n died due to electrocution. Post mortem examination was also conducted in which the death of the petitioner’s son by electrocution has been confirmed. The pet itioner then filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, claiming compensation for the death of his son. No response was received from the respond ent- Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner did not file any claim petition before the ASEB or its authorities. The present petition has been filed without filing any formal claim petition before the ASEB. The Deputy Commissioner, before who m the petitioner filed the above complaint has not been made a party to this wr it proceeding. However, the ASEB and its authorities having been made parties i n the writ proceeding, they have filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the av erments and claim made by the petitioner. 4. In this respect, the State respondent No. 7 conducted an inquiry i nto the said incident and a report dated 15-02-2010 has been submitted vide No. CEIA/EAR-16/Pt./06/25 dated 19-02-2010. A copy of the said report was also furn ished to the learned Standing Counsel of the ASEB. As per order dated 25-05-201 0, Mr. D. Bhattacherjee, learned Standing counsel for the ASEB prayed for time t ill 01-06-2010 for obtaining necessary instructions. No affidavit has been file d by the ASEB in respect of the aforesaid report submitted by the Respondent No. 7. 5. In the said report dated 15-02-2010 submitted vide letter dated 19 -02-2010, the description of the accident and its finding with recommendations h ave been recorded as under-- & & & & & & & & & & & & &. .. & .. & & 10) Brief Description of the accident. This report is prepared based on the detailed report submitted by the ASE B authority, statement of the concerned officer of ASEB during enquiry, statemen ts of the local people and the Post Mortem report submitted. On the date of accident that is on 20-08-2004 at about 4.30 P.M., the vic tim Late Pankaj Bordoloi, aged about 4 years, was playing in front of his house with some other boys and girls of his age, when the L.T. Over Head line drawn al ong the Nagaon Dhing PWD road in front of the premises of the victim suddenly sn apped and fell on the ground. By seeing the line, the victim, perhaps out of cur iosity touched that and received fatal electric shock. As stated by the SDE of the concerned electrical sub-division of ASEB, t he line, which was constructed about 18 years back, might have snapped due to da mages done by miscreants who used to indulge in power theft by hooking. It also appeared that no preventive maintenance was carried out by ASEV to ensure healt hiness of the line. 11) Contravention of I.E. Rules. From the facts and circumstances leading to the accident, it appears th at the provisions of rule 29 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 are cont ravened by the owner of the line that is ASEB. 12) Recommendation. Strict observance of the safety precautionary measures laid down in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. It is recommended that regular checking of Over Head line should be carried out at regular interval. 6. As per the said report, the ASEB has been found negligent and it contravened the provision under Rule 29 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1 956. In view of such finding and recommendation of the Chief Electrical Inspec tor-cum-Adviser and Electrical Inspector, Assam, the petitioner is entitled to g et adequate compensation for the death of his son. What should be the adequate compensation is to be determined. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned Standing counsel for the ASEB has produced an office memorandum bearing No. ASEB (IR) 84/96/Pt./24 dated 22-12-2008 issued by the Manager (IR) ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-1 in which the rate of compensat ion has been fixed in respect of victim (fatal) of electrical accident, who are not in employment of the Board, as under-- Upto 20 years of age - Rs.1.00 lakh Above 20 years and upto 55 years - Rs.1.50 lakh Above 55 years of age - R s.1.00 lakh As per the aforesaid office memorandum of the ASEB, in the prese nt case, since the age of the victim is only 4 years, an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh only could be paid as compensation. 8. The aforesaid office memorandum fixing the compensation has not b een challenged in this writ petition nor has it been shown before this Court tha t the aforesaid office memorandum has been cancelled or challenged by any party. In view of the above, this Court is not in a position to pass any order beyond the aforesaid office memorandum. Accordingly, it is directed that the responde nts-ASEB shall pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the petitioner as compensation f or the death of his son within a period of 30 days from today. 9. It is provided that if the ASEB authorities fails to make paymen t of compensation amount within a period of 30 days, it will carry an interest @ 10% per annum from the date of passing this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petitio n stands disposed of.