JUDGMENT

S. PUJAHARI, J. : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) on account of death of one Bhadra Santa in electrocution arising out of the negligence of the opposite parties in maintaining the electric transmission line.

2.Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as under :

On 22.08.1997, deceased-Bhadra Santa had been to village Bhanjaguda to work as a daily labourer. After the day’s work, when he was returning to his village-Jhadabandhaguda in the district of Nabarangpur, on the way, his umbrella came in contact with the live electric transmission line which was hanging low between the two poles because of poor maintenance on the part of the opposite parties, responsible for maintenance of transmission and supply of electricity in that locality, as a result of which the deceased got electrocuted and died at the spot. The aforesaid unnatural death of the deceased is attributable to the negligence of the opposite parties, inasmuch as due to their poor maintenance the poles tilted during the rain and storm and live electric wire hanged low which resulted in the death of the deceased. The deceased was aged about thirty years at the time of his death and he was the sole bread winner, having a monthly income of Rs.2000/-, out of which he was contributing Rs.1,500/- to the maintenance of his family per month. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are his three minor sons. The petitioners, as such, claim compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) from the opposite parties which according to them modest and made the prayer as stated earlier.

3.In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it has been denied that the opposite parties are negligent in maintaining electric transmission line and the deceased died of electrocution, so also the deceased was a labourer and the petitioners are being legal heirs as his wife and sons, entitled to the compensation. A specific plea has also been taken that even if it is held that the deceased died of electrocution, but the same being and act of God, inasmuch as the electric poles are tilted on account of rain and storm, not due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the opposite parties have no liability to pay the compensation.

4.During the course of hearing, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Parvati Palai v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and another, reported in, 2006 (Supp-I) OLR 1114 that in view of averment that the deceased died of electrocution, supported by ample materials vide Annexures-1, 2 and 3, i.e., the U.D. F.I.R., postmortem examination report and final report in the U.D. case and alternatively it is also admitted by the opposite parties that the deceased had died of electrocution, the petitioners are entitled for compensation, inasmuch as the death of the deceased is attributable to the negligence of the opposite parties, which undisputedly maintain the transmission lines and the defence of act of God is not available to the opposite parties to avoid the liability. Furthermore, it is also contended that even if the case involves in disputed question of fact, the same being not involving a complex question of disputed fact, looking into the affidavit filed and material on record, the Court can adjudicate on the same, and as such, the contention raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of disputed question of fact is devoid of merit. Since due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the accident occurred and the petitioners lost their sole bread winner, they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, which is modest considering that he is a labourer, with interest and the opposite parties, as such