The duty of care owed by the Electricity Board to ensure public safety and the equitable jurisdiction of the court to award compensation.

Reportable ----------By Court: The husband of respondent, Ramanuj Prasad, who was an Advocate's Clerk, when he was coming to the High Court he suffered shock because of the fall of 11000 Volt wire on the road and ultimately he died. A report was submitted in Kanke Police Station on the same day being Kanke P.S. U.D. Case No. 4 of 2001 on 30th March, 2001. The wife of the deceased, Ramanuj Prasad preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2025 of 2002, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 11th June, 2002 and it was observed that “as the matter requires determination by the respondents at first instance, the case be remitted to the Chairman, JSEB, who will determine both the issues relating to payment of damages and appointment of writ petitioner on compassionate ground within two months from the date of receipt of representation as may be preferred by the said petitioner”.

2. It appears that in pursuance of the direction of this Court contained in order dated 11th June, 2002 the representation of the petitioner was considered but admittedly no compensation was determined and in view of the further direction of this Court to consider the framing of the policies for providing compensation to the persons, who may suffer or otherwise injured due to such nature of accident, the J.S.E.B framed the policy and quantified the compensation to such victims. On the representation of the writ petitioner, which was decided before the said policy decision, it has been observed by the Chairman that “ it is accepted that authorities of State

Electricity Board owes a duty of care to see that live wire is removed immediately and the power is switched off in such a natural calamities so as to make the public place safe for the visitors. It is also accepted that failure to do so will make the Board liable to pay damage for human life. It is also ordered that adequate resolutions be framed by the Board within a period of three months in light of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 AIR SCW 129 to decide such cases on uniform policy. The claim of Madhuri Kumari, thereafter be decided as per the regulations to be framed on priority basis preferably within a fortnight after the date of issue of such guidelines by the Board” .

3. Though, admittedly the Chairman of the Board directed to frame the policy to deal with the claim of compensation in the case of electrocution injuries but did not determine the quantum of compensation for the petitioner and deferred the issue till the policy is framed. Admittedly, on the date of actual cause of action i.e., on the date of death there was no policy and therefore in view of the direction of this Court given in W.P.( C) No. 2025 of 2004 vide order dated 11th June, 2002 the Chairman should have decided the quantum of compensation. However, the writ petitioner was not granted any compensation and contempt petition was preferred to this Court being Cont. (C) No. 892 of 2002, which was allowed vide order dated 26th March, 2003 by detailed order and the learned Single Judge consciously, knowing well the scope of jurisdiction under contempt proceedings observed that, it will be additional burden upon the writ petitioner if she be asked to file separate petition to agitate the question of quantum and the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, directed the respondents to pay a total lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-(two lacs fifty thousand). It was further directed that the amount will be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which respondents will be liable to pay the interest @ 8% on such amount from the date of death of the husband of petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved against the order dated 26th March, 2003 passed in the said contempt petition no. 892 of 2002 this L.P.A. has been preferred by the Electricity Board.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitte