Complaints before the Commission foreseen the damage caused by it. On the contrary, all transmission/distribution lines lying there, by their very hazardous nature, were expected to have been so installed as to withstand the vagaries of nature/weather like rain, high velocity wind/storm, etc. Even if it were assumed that the storm was in fact of such a high intensity as could have broken the live wire, the Commission observed that an imperative obligation was cast upon the concerned authorities to take immediate measures to switch off the power so as to prevent disastrous consequences. There ^vas also nothing on record to show that adequate safeguards had been taken by the BSEB to guard the live wire of the transmission/ distribution line fallen on the ground, even if it had broken down as a result of the alleged storm. The authorities of the State Electricity Board had a duty to see that the live wire was removed immediately and/or that the power was switched off, so as to make a public place safe. The Commission thus noted that there ^vas a clear breach of duty on the part of the State Electricity Board, which had resulted in the death of Shri Satyabrat Narain Singh. The Commission was, therefore, of the opinion that the State and Electricity Board Authorities were liable to the victim for damages. The Commission accordingly recommended a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the wife of the deceased by way of immediate interim relief, without prejudice or detriment to her right to claim damages under the civil law. However, in case such a claim is put forth, the Commission said that the concerned adjudicatory authority might take into accoimt the payment of the above interim relief to the complainant ^vhile awarding damages. Further, the Bihar State Electricity Board was directed to constitute an enquiry into the matter and to frame adequate regulations/guidelines to take appropriate and prompt measures to prevent the recurrence of such incidents involving human life. The compliance report with regard to the payment of compensation has been received by the Commission. COMMENT In Manohar Lai Sobha Ram Gupta v MP Electricity Board} the High Court held that it was negligence to omit to use all reasonable means to keep electricity from harming a person. The standard of care required was held to be high, owing to the inherently dangerous nature of electricity, and the burden of proving that there was no negligence was on the authorities. The principle was reiterated in Angoori Devi v Municipal Corporation Delhi} and in Padma Behari v Orissa State Electricity Board} The main plank of defence of the State Government and BSEB was that it was an Act of God (vis major). The Commission was, however, of the considered view, that the said defence was not available to them for the following reasons: 1 1975 ACJ 494. 2 3 AIR 1998 Del 305. AIR 1992 Ori 68. 123