Judgment · High Court · 2012

is prevented, which they had failed to do. The contention that the wire did not snap does not mitigate the liability or responsibility of the State Electricity authority in not maintaining proper height of the conductor in flood prone areas .

#21. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the electrocution of the hus band of the petitioner was due to negligent act on the part of the Assam State E lectricity Board. Thus, by causing death of the husband of the petitioner, the r ight to life of the husband of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated and this Court by exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution can award compensation in favour of the petitioner under public law remedy as discussed above.

#22. The petitioner’s husband was aged about 30 years and his monthly income was about Rs. 3000/-, and was stated to be the only earning member of the family leaving behind the petitioner and four minor children. Though the Respondents h ave denied these averments as regards his profession and income, it will not com e in the way of the Court to award compensation to the petitioner. The responden ts have not denied the facts about the legal heirs who have survived him, i.e. t he petitioner and four daughters who were minors at the relevant time.

#23. Therefore, the next question which arises for consideration is as regard s the quantum of compensation. There is no uniformity of yardstick followed in a warding damages for violation of Fundamental Rights as observed in D.K. Basu’s c ase (Supra). In fact in Sube Singh -vrs.- State of Hariyana 2006 SCC 178, the Su preme Court held that the quantum of compensation will, depend upon the facts a nd circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Del hi (supra), after considering the series of decision in this regard observed tha t in such circumstances, the Court can invoke its own method depending the facts and circumstances of each case till appropriate comprehensive legislation deali ng with tortuous liabilities of the State, its instrumentalities is enacted. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Only contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that in abse nce of enquiry and finding of the Electrical Inspector the appellant could not b e held to be responsible. We are unable to accept the submission. The occurrence took place 8 years back and if the appellant wanted to rely on the report of the Electrical Inspector, t he Court cannot wait indefinitely. The post mortem report shows that death was on account of electrocution. The ple a of vis major was found to be not acceptable. The incident was not beyond fores eeability. The deceased was 30 years of age. The doctrine of res ipsa locutor co uld certainly be invoked in these circumstances. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Sin gle Judge. The appeal is dismissed.