Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,60,000.00 by way of compensation on account of death of his son due to electrocution.

2. According to the petitioner, on 19.11.1997, while he and his son Mukesh Kumar were engaged in agriculture operation in their land, the over-head electrical wire of 33 KVA which passes over their land, all of a sudden, snapped and fell down while his son was working and as a consequence of the high voltage he died of electrocution. According to the petitioner, he gave report to the said effect to the Officer-in-charge of Lakhisarai Police Station and on that basis, Lakhisarai (UD) P.S. Case No. 9 of 1997 was registered. According to the inquest report, cause of death was electrical shock. In the opinion of the doctor who had conducted the post mortem also the deceased died due to electrical shock. On the premise that the petitioners son died of electrical shock on account of snapping of the electrical wire, petitioner by his letter dated 5.12.1997 addressed to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, prayed for payment of compensation of Rs. 3,60,000.00 . Such a demand was made by the petitioner before the Electrical Superintending Engineer and the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, but nothing was paid to him.

3. Petitioner has filed this application, inter alia, contending that his son having died of electrical shock on account of snapping of electrical wire because of the negligence of the functionaries of the Bihar State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) he is entitled for grant of compensation.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 and in paragraph 7 thereof, he has stated as follows :-

-

"6. That the petitioner has claimed in paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition that on 19.11.1997 while he and his son, Mukesh Kumar were engaged in cutting cauliflower in his own field at 12 noon over head electrical wire of 33 KVA which passes over his field running from Lakhisarai to Suryagarha all of a sudden snapped and fell down and his son was electrocuted causing instantaneous death. The said statement/claim of the petitioner is not correct. It is stated that 33 KVA Line does not pass through the land of the petitioner, hence there can be no question of conductor of 33 KVA line snapping and falling in the field of the petitioner on account of which any death or accident could have occurred.

5. It is relevant here to state that the petitioner in the writ application has stated that a 33 KVA line had passed over his land and his son died of snapping of the said wire and in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit referred to above, the emphasis of respondents was that 33 KVA line is not passing and, therefore, there was no occasion for falling 33 KVA line. On being prima facie, satisfied that the respondents are trying to divert the issue and the counter affidavit suffers from the vice of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi, by order dated 15.1.2004, I had directed the respondents to file further counter affidavit as to whether any line passes over the land of the petitioner where the accident had taken place. In the light of the said order a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed and in paragraph 4 thereof, it has been stated as follows :

"The deponent along with Sri Ajit Kumar, Junior Electrical Engineer visited the site in question on 11.2.2004. On enquiry it was found that a 11 KVA electric line which starts from 33/11 KVA Power Sub Station Lakhisarai which is Suryagarh Reader passes over the land of Ram Swarup Yadav Mohalla English, Lakhisarai."

6. Mr. R.K.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioners son having died on account of the electrocution because of the snapping of the wire due to negligence of the functionaries of the respondent-Board, this is a fit case in