JUDGMENT :

B.U. Debadwar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issuing writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of death of petitioner’s husband due to electrocution.

3. Facts giving rise to the petition, in nutshell, are as under:-

Mr. Sainath Mahadu Danekar, R/o. Village Dhanora (Kh.), Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded, was an agriculturist by profession. On 21.09.2011, at evening time, after completion of agriculture work, when he was returning to the house along with a plow on his shoulder, on the way, near the field of Mr. Narhari Kulkarni, came in contact with live electric cable which was in hanging position, sustained severe electric shock and died due to electrocution, soon after falling on the earth. The villagers gathered at the spot, informed the incident to the police officials of the Karkheli Police Station, Tq. Dharmabad. Upon that, police officials of the said police station rushed to the spot, shifted dead body of Mr. Sainath Danekar to the PHC, Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, with a report to conduct post-mortem. Then, they drew spot panchanama, conducted inquest of the dead body and registered A.D. Case No. 25/2011. The Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the cause of death of Mr. Sainath was due to electric shock. Upon that, petitioner who is the widow of Mr. Sainath Danekar, the deceased, approached the respondents with a claim of compensation, in view of the circulars issued by MSEDCL, from time to time, but in vain. Therefore, she approached this Court and filed present writ petition.

4. Respondents by filing affidavit-in-reply resisted the claim raised in the petition only on the ground of delay. According to the respondents, after about four years of the fatal accident in question, the petitioner moved the application claiming compensation. Though informed to collect the compensation amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as per the circular of 2008 after submitting heirship certificate, she did not turn up to collect the same with heirship certificate. The amount of compensation which she has claimed is not liable to be paid. The interest claimed by the petitioner is baseless. There is no provision in circulars regarding payment of interest in fatal accident case. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Following are the facts which are not in dispute.

(i) A fatal accident took place on 21.09.2011 at evening time near the field of Mr. Narhari Kulkarni, situated at village Dhanora (Kh.).

(ii) Mr. Sainath Danekar died due to electrocution on coming into contact of high-holtage live electric wire which was hanging there.

(iii) A.D. Case No. 25/2011 came to be registered in pursuance of the information provided by villagers.

(iv) During the course of inquiry of A.D. case, spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were drawn and then postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Mr. Sainath at PHC Karkheli, Dharmabad.

6. Upon scrutiny of police papers in A.D. Case No. 25/2011 registered at Dharmabad Police Station, copies of which are annexed to the petition viz. spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and memo of post-mortem examination, it becomes clear that, Mr. Sainath Danekar, while returning to the home from the field, on the road near agriculture land belonging to Mr. Narhari Kulkarni, came in contact with high holtage wire/cable, sustained electric shock and died instantly due to electrocution.

7. Affidavit-in-reply submitted by the respondents speaks volumes that, on 23.09.2011, Assistant Engineer working in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), Dharmabad, visited the spot, conducted the inquiry and forwarded his report to the Assistant Electrical Inspector, I. E. Department, Workshop Road, Nanded, on 30.09.2011 in annexure ‘XII’. On receiving report, Electrical Inspector,