The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Electricity Board under the Law of Torts for compensation in cases of negligence or carelessness, irrespective of safety measures taken.

The writ petition is filed for direction against the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband.

2. The petitioner 1st he wife of one Stanislaus, who was working in Sri Kutchi Milan (Madras) Charitable Trust, Purasawalkam and they have a married daughter apart from one un-married son Ruben and un-married daughter Jaculine. On 14.06.1996, in the early morning at 5.00 a.m. the petitioners husband went to procure milk from the nearby Aavin Milk Booth. On the night there was heavy rain and when her husband was passing in Anna Street, near the tea shop, he had to step on the live wire, snapped from electrical post No.146 and he was thrown down due to electrocution. One boy by name Nataraj, tried to pull him and he was also electrocuted and it was after two hours electric supply was disconnected and in the meantime, the petitioners husband died on the spot.

2(a). A complaint was lodged to the Sub-Inspector of Police, G-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Madhavaram and First Information Report was registered in Crime No.559/96 dated 17.06.1996. In the post-mortem conducted on 17.06.1996, it was found that the area of 2nd degree burns on the sacral region 45 x 20 cms. with blackening and charring of the skin and the cause of death as per the said certificate consistent with the history of death was due to electrocution.

2(b). It is the case of the petitioner that due to the negligence, carelessness and failure to perform the duty on the part of the respondents in maintaining the electric poles properly, the accident has occurred, resulting the death of the petitioners husband. It is also the case of the petitioner that it was because of the respondents negligence in not maintaining the electric poles with automatic fuse, which were not actually functioning, the petitioner has lost the only bread-winner of the family. The petitioner has also stated that there is violation of various provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. The petitioner has made many representations to the respondents and since there was no reply, ultimately issued a legal notice on 17.06.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was aged 50 years at the time of death and he was physically healthy and has claimed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation for the death of her husband.

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. While it is admitted that the petitioners husband died due to electrocution on the road on 14.06.1996 at 5.30 hours in the morning, it is the case of the respondent Electricity Board that immediately on receiving such information over phone, a representative of the Board went to the spot and at that time the third respondent was informed that the victim was admitted in the hospital for treatment. On enquiry, the respondent Board found that a person aged about 55 years was snapped by the live conductor and his name was Stanislaus. It is also admitted that the electrocution took place on the road when the said Stanislaus was proceeding from his house to nearby milk booth. It is also the case of the respondent Board that it was due to heavy storm and rain on 14.06.1996, the accident has taken place. However, it is the case of the respondent Board that the Board has been maintaining the poles and wires in good condition. It is also the further case of the respondent Board that the accident took place due to heavy rain and it is an act of God beyond the control of Electricity Board and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Board. The allegation of the petitioner that the accident took place due to the carelessness of the Board is denied. It is also further stated that without prejudice to the above said contention the compensation claimed is high.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the relevant records.

.5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the factu