The court cannot decide on compensation when a factual dispute exists.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.43,20,000/- to the petitioners for the death of the petitioners' son within a time frame fixed by this Court.)

1. The writ petition has been filed for mandamus seeking a direction as against the respondents electricity board for payment of compensation of Rs.43,20,000/- for the death of the first and second petitioner's son.

2. The first and second petition's son and the brother of the petitioners 3 to 5 who was aged about 23 years had died due to electrocution on 25.11.2012. According to the petitioners, the deceased was running a service station. At the time of fatal accident, the deceased was working inside the gully area constructed for the purpose of servicing the motor vehicles. There was a HT power line running over the building. The said power line was running on the roof of the said house. Suddenly electricity passed through the said unused power line and the deceased got electric shock and he died.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respondent authorities have left unattended a high-tension wire running overhead and failed to keep them in erect position. Despite several requests made by the petitioners, the respondents authorities have replied that it was a waste line and hence there is no possibility of electricity passing through the said line. However, suddenly on the fatal day, electricity passed through the water sump and gushed into the hands of the deceased and the deceased died due to electrocution. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, only due to negligence on the part of the respondent authorities, the said accident has taken place and therefore, the respondent authorities are liable to compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a F.I.R registered in Crime No.984 of 2012 and contended that there was no electricity supply at the time when the accident took place and suddenly at around 2.00 p.m, the electricity was restored through the waste line and deceased got electrocuted. The learned counsel had further relied upon a postmortem report which discloses that there are three electric burnt marks on the centre of the Chest of the deceased. He had further relied upon the photographs to contend that a high-tension electrical line was running overhead of the building and it was touching the building.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 had filed a counter affidavit and contended that there are no electrical high-tension line over and above the house of the writ petitioners. The first and second petitioner's son was running a water service station and he was using generator at the time of power shutdown. The petitioners' son came in contact with his generator and got electrocuted. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the electricity board. The petitioners alone have not properly maintained the electricity service connection within their own premises. The learned counsel also relied upon the accident inspection report filed by the respondent authorities to contend that there was no electricity supply to the said place at the time of accident and hence, the accident is not due to the electricity supply from the board. He had also relied upon the inspection report which discloses that a diesel generator was used for servicing the motor vehicle. Only the said diesel generator has caused electrocution. He had further contended that there are serious factual disputes with regard to the manner of accident and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. There is no dispute that the first and second petitioner's son had died on 25.11.2012 at about 2.00 p.m while he was servicing a vehicle in his service station.

8. Accordi