The main legal point established is the determination of adequate compensation based on the principles of negligence and the pursuit of relief under the law.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board.

2. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs for the death of his wife late Renu Devi, aged about 28 years, minor daughter late Jyoti Kumari and minor son Raushan Kumar, both aged about 5 years and 2 years respectively due to inaction and negligent acts of the respondents.

3. The petitioner made a fardbeyan before the police on 6.10.1987 giving rise of U.D. Case No. 8/87 dated 6.10.1987. He alleged that the transformer of the Board which was installed near the house of the petitioner got burnt and exploded as a result of which three of his family members sustained injuries and died. It was also stated that apart from these three, some other persons including the petitioner also sustained injuries. He alleged that the transformer was not working properly for quite some time and information regarding the same was given to the Electricity Board.

4. The District Magistrate, Gaya set up an enquiry and Shri R.B. Singh, Deputy Collector, Gaya after enquiry submitted his report stating therein that the transformer got burnt and exploded due to negligence of the Electricity Department, although they were informed about the malfunctioning and damaged condition of the transformer. A copy of the enquiry report is annexed at Annexure-2. Afte. receipt of the aforesaid report, the District Magistrate, Gaya also made recommendation to respondent no. 2, the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, for making payment of compensation. A copy of recommendation of the District Magistrate, Gaya dated 18.2.1988 is annexed at Annexure-3.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5675 of 1988 for payment of compensation for the death of his wife and two minor children which was disposed of by order dated 15.9.1998. The Division Bench in paragraphs of the aforesaid order observed that though prayer was made for awarding compensation, but during the course of hearing the petitioner only pressed that the Board should consider for giving employment to his son Deepak Kumar who is unemployed.

6. Noticing the submission that the Board will consider the case of the petitioner for giving employment to his son, this writ petition was disposed of in the aforesaid term.

7. The petitioner in light of the order of this court filed application before the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, for appointment of his son which was ultimately rejected by the Board by order dated 20.4.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt application being M.J.C. No. 1638 of 1999 which was dismissed by order dated 7.3.2001 wherein it was observed that as the Board had disposed of the application of the petitioner for employment of his son vide Annexure-5, no case for contempt is made out.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for payment of compensation. This court by order dated 18.3.2002 while observing that the Electricity Board has paid only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, directed it to file counter affidavit within six weeks. On 30.7.2002 this court in paragraphs 1 and 2 observed as follows:-

"Even before the parties could place their respective cases on merits, this court found from the office order dated 20.4.1999 (Annexure-5) that the Board has put the value of three lives at Rs. 25,000/-. This, to say the least, shocks the conscience of this court. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Standing Counsel for the Board has still some hope that some reasonable settlement may be made by the Board itself and this court may not be called upon to adjudicate on this case. He naturally needs some time to explore the possibilities".

9. On 1.10.2002 a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Board enclosing office order no. 3819, dated 24.9.2002 issued by the Board, whereby it had sanctioned an additional payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- t