1. Prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50 lakhs to the petitioner on account of the death of Devinder Dhiman, husband of the petitioner and son of proforma respondent, who allegedly died on account of negligence of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at about 10.00 A.M. on 20.03.2019 Devinder Dhiman (since deceased), husband of the petitioner and son of proforma respondent, lost his life due to the entangling with loose electricity wire that was lying broken on the road from the main line passing over the road. Devinder Dhiman while was on his way from Yamuna Nagar, driving a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.HR - 04 - H - 2192, he met with an accident on account of the loose overhead transmission lines. The death was thus directly attributable to the improper supervision / inspections by respondent No.2 - Distribution Licensee and their being negligent in proper care and maintenance of the electricity wires which were lying broken and unattended on the road making it dangerous for the life of the people who were plying their vehicles on the road. FIR No. 0095 dated 21.03.2019 had been registered at Police Station Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana by Tarsem Singh son of Mehar Chand (brother of the deceased) and statement of petitioner - widow of the deceased was also recorded. The deceased was taken to the Indus Hospital Mohali where he was declared brought dead and his postmortem was conducted. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was head injury.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has approached this Court since the incident in question took place as a direct outcome of the failure / negligence on the part of the respondents and that she is entitled for compensation on account of lapses committed by the respondents. It is contended that the deceased was working with LEEL Electricals Ltd. and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.26,067/- and he was 32 years of age at the time of incident. He was the sole bread earner of family and that the family is in great pecuniary hardship on account of the death of Devinder Dhiman.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Baljit Kaur and others v. Union of India and others, reported as 2012 ACJ 2596 : (AIROnLine 2011 P and H 74). Relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus: -
"6. Plea raised on behalf of the Railways that petitioners have not been able to establish the accident, is only to escape their liability. The Railways being a government organization can be expected to behave in a better manner. There is clear evidence of breaking of railway gate. Ignoring the material placed by the petitioners on record to show that the gate fell on the head of late husband of petitioner No. 1 the simple denial by respondents would not suffice. There is, thus, clear and cogent evidence available on record that the death of late husband of petitioner No. 1 was due to the reasons disclosed in the petition. The manner in which Railways had maintained the gate would be enough to show that they were not vigilant enough to ensure safety of public at large. The negligence from the manner in which the accident has taken place would clearly emerge. The respondents, thus, are seen liable for causing this death due to negligence. This negligence is gross and has led to the loss of bread - earner for the petitioners. A clear case for grant of compensation, therefore, is made out.
7. The aspect of grant of compensation by way of public law proceedings is by now fully established. There is not much dispute on the fact that the writ court is competent to assess and grant compensation in case of negligence. In this regard reference can be made to Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC) : (AIR 1993 SC 1960); Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India 1984 (1) SCC 339 : (AIR 1984 SC 571); Sebastian M. H