Aftab Alam, J.

1. India is still considered by the economists as a developing country. Bihar is one of its poorest states. In the event, there are countless ways in which the poor in this State might die. Accidental electrocution, among them, is not unknown. Death by accidental electrocution is hardly surprising having regard to the very poor state of maintenance of electric fittings in private or public premises and an equally sorry state in which the Bihar State Electricity Board is able to keep its installations. But what is actually shocking is the callous and mindless attitude of the Board in such cases. It would try to completely deny such occurrence(s) and in that connection, it may go so far as to try to mislead the Court.

2. The case in hand, is one such instance. According to the writ petitioner, (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) around mid-day on 19.11.1997, he and his son were collecting vegetables grown on his piece of land. At that time, the 33 KVA electric line passing over their land suddenly snapped and fell on the ground. His son came in contact with the live wire and as a result he died of electric shock. He reported his sons death by electrocution at Lakhisarai Police Station giving rise to Lakhisarai (UD) P.S. Case No. 3 of 1997. The police found the body of the peasants son lying on the land where he had died. The inquest and the post-mortem held on the body of the deceased confirmed that death was due to electrocution.

3. The petitioner filed a writ petition claiming from the Board a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000.00 for the death of his son. The Board took the plea that no 33 KVA line passed over the land of the petitioner and hence, all the statements made by him were untrue. A little investigation by the Court revealed that an electric line actually passed over the land of the petitioner though it was not of 33 KVA but 11 KVA (equally lethal on coming in contact with human body). The board in its supplementary counter affidavit was forced to admit as follows:

On enquiry, it was found that a 11 KVA electric line which starts from 33/11 KVA Power Sub Station, Lakhisarai (sic) which is Suryagarh Feader passes over the land of Ramswarup Yadav, Mohalla English, Lakhasarai.

4. The learned Single Judge was naturally annoyed at the conduct of the Board and observed that the Board which was a statutory authority performing a public duty was expected to be more honest and forthcoming before the Court.

5. Once the basic facts relating to the manner and the cause of death of the petitioners son were resolved, it was contended on behalf of the Board that notwithstanding death resulting from electric shock, there would be no obligation to pay compensation unless it was established that the accident had taken place due to any negligence on its part. In support of the Contention, Mr. Dutta, Counsel for the petitioner (as his Lordships then was) relied on the two Supreme Court decisions referred to in the judgment of the Writ Court. The Writ Court, however, did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the Board. Pointing out the obvious, the learned single Judge remarked that if a wire carrying high voltage electric current and passing over hesitations snapped and fell on the ground without any apparent reason, then unless shown otherwise the inference would be that the mishap was the result of carelessness and laches on the part of the Board. The Writ Court concluded the discussions with the following observations:

The irresistible conclusion of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioners son had died of shock in his field on account of snapping of electrical wire due to negligence of the respondents and, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation.

6. It accordingly directed the Board to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs. two lakhs and allowed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000.00 in view of the unfair stand of the respondents.

7. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha appearing in support of the appe