INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The petitioners before this Court are the unfortunate parents of Master Akshat Singhal who had succumbed to his death in an unfortunate incident of 05.07.2014. Master Akshat (aged 14 years) had gone with his father in the evening to Sanjay Park, New Gobind Puri to play with his friends. This was his usual routine. His father went off for an evening walk. The child started playing with his friends. They were playing cricket. In the course of this play, when master Akshat went to fetch the ball which was parked at the end of the park near a high mast light pole, his hand touched a high voltage electricity cable wire which electrocuted him. He died on the spot. Master Akshat Singhal was removed to the hospital. FIR No.414 was lodged at the local Police Station. The autopsy report prepared in the course of this investigation has opined the cause of death as a ventricular fibrillation being a result of electrocution; injuries No. 5 & 6 caused by this electrocution were sufficient to cause the death of the child; the injuries were all ante-mortem.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that this park is maintained by the Corporation i.e. East Delhi Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 1). Electricity inside the park as also in the periphery and all other electric installations made in the park are carried out by the BSES (respondent No. 2). It is because of the co-joint negligent acts of the respondents that the child of the petitioners had died. This petition has been filed seeking compensation from both the aforenoted respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon various judgments. He has highlighted the judgment of the Apex Court reported as (2004) 5 SCC 793 H.S.E.B Vs. Ram Nath. Submission is that this judgment had considered the impact of the earlier judgment delivered by the Supreme Court reported as (1997) 7 SCC 298 Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd.; that judgment had been distinguished; the Apex Court had noted that where no disputed questions of facts arise (as is in the present case), the family of the victim even in cases of death by electrocution are entitled to compensation. Reliance has also been placed upon another judgment of the Apex Court reported as (2000) 4 SCC 543 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi & Others. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered in W.P. (C) No.475/2013 Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Others. Submission is that in this case where the child had died because of electrocution, compensation having been awarded of more than Rs.1 crore, the matter had gone in appeal before the Apex Court which had upheld this finding returned by the Himachal Pradesh Bench; modification was only made in the quantum of the compensation.

4. The respondents have refuted the stand of the petitioners. The contention of both the respondents being that disputed questions of fact have arisen; the petitioners are thus not entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction. At best the parties have to be relegated to a suit where the parties should be given opportunity to lead evidence to prove their respective submissions.

5. Counter affidavit of respondent No. 1 has been perused. The stand of respondent No. 1 being that the lighting around and inside the park is the responsibility of respondent No. 2 who has to maintain the electric connections; the answering respondent is not connected with this maintenance which is under the management and control of respondent No. 2 alone. Attention has been drawn to a Electricity Report prepared by the Department (24.07.2014) pursuant an inquiry had been set up by respondent No. 1. Submission is that as per this Report it has been established that the core PVC wire belonged to the BSES and the PVC cable had a marking upon it noting this property as that of the DESU. No responsibility can be foisted upon respondent No. 1.

6. Cou