Also heard Mr. D. Nath v. Nos. 1

10,00,000/-. The respondent No. 3 that is, the Senior Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam ha s filed an affidavit on 12-03-2012 enclosing therewith his report dated 28-10-20 11 in respect of the death of Asraful Islam. As per the said electrical accident report, the residence of late Asraful Islam is at village No. 3 Malibori Pathar . The service line to his residence allegedly contained a joint. The line had sn apped and was lying on the ground. The victim while working, came in contact wit h the snapped line, as a result of which he died. As per the post mortem report, which has also been referred to in the report of the Senior Electrical Inspecto r, the cause of death was electrocution. The Senior Electrical Inspector has opi ned that there was violation of Regulations 12 and 13(1) of the Central Electric ity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 201 0. The learned Standing Counsel, ASEB while denying the allegations of negligence, submits from the counter affidavit dated 21-12-2011 as well as the additional af fidavit dated 01-03-2012 that against the report of the Senior Electrical Inspec tor, the Board has preferred an appeal under Section 162(2) of the Electricity A ct, 2003. He, therefore, submits that no order of compensation may be passed dur ing the pendency of the above appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the docume nts on record, I am of the view that it would not be justified to keep the matte r pending any longer. The Senior Electrical Inspector is a statutory authority a nd his report and opinion cannot be and should not be lightly brushed aside. Tho ugh the learned standing counsel has submitted that the appeal has been filed ag ainst the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, nothing has been placed on record as to what has happened in the appellate proceeding. Normally and as a general rule, claims of compensation based on tortious liabili ty are to be decided in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. But in a case of loss suffered because of negligence in the discharge of statutory duty, ther e can be no bar for a writ Court to entertain a claim of compensation for such l oss. Even otherwise, considering the public character of the duties carried out by th e ASEB and its successor companies, it cannot escape from the adverse consequenc e which may arise on account of any omission in the discharge of its duties by applying the principle of strict liability. Explaining the concept of strict lia bility, the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vrs. Shail Kumari a nd others; reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 held as under: (cid:28)8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertakin g an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable und er law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irres pective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such un dertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law , as (cid:28)strict liability (cid:29). It differs from the liability which arises on account o f the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such c onsideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm b y taking precautions. (cid:29) Again, this Court in the case of (cid:28)Mosht. Amena Bewa Vrs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors.; reported in 2007 (3) GLT 32 held as under: (cid:28)12. Under the law, a very onerous obligation is cast on the Board in transmitti ng and supplying electrical energy. Having regard to the nature of the enterpris e undertaken, the Board has to be extra vigilant and cautious so much so that th e lives and properties of persons are not exposed to any risk or fatal consequen ces. This makes it incumbent on the Board to be meticulously watchful about the installation for supplying such energy so that any omission it maintaining the s ame would make it liable for all adverse consequences flowing therefrom followin g the principle of strict liability. (cid:28) In view of the above and on consideration of the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, I am of the view that the ASEB is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the death of their minor son. Having held so, the quantum of compensation is now required to be determined. In the said judgment of Mosht. Amena Bewa (supra), this Court has held that compen sation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of pallia tive and some guess work is inevitable. But the same has to be reasonable. It is seen that the ASEB had issued an office memorandum dated 22-12-2008 fixing the amount of compensation in respect of victims (fatal) of electrical accident s who are not in employment in the ASEB. As per the said office memorandum, in t he case of death of a person up-to the age of 20 years, the amount of compensati on has been fixed at Rs 1,00,000/-. In my view, considering the present financia l situation prevalent in the country, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is certainly on the lower side. Moreover, the said amount was fixed three years ago . In the present case, the deceased was aged about 17 years at the time of his dea th and he was the only son of the petitioners. Considering the above, I am of the view that the petitioners should be paid a co mpensation of Rs. 1.50 lakhs for the death of their son Asraful Islam. The afore said amount shall be deposited by the ASEB within a period of 6 weeks from today in the Registry of this Court and the said amount shall be released to the peti tioners on proper identification by their counsel. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the afo resaid amount, it would be open for them to institute appropriate proceeding bef ore the competent Civil Court for higher compensation. Writ petition stands disposed of.