The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability, which holds a person liable for compensation for injury or death caused by an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness.

1. The petitioner herein has come forward to file this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- due to the fatal accident caused to his son by the electrocution caused by the live wire getting snapped.

Facts in brief:

2. The petitioner's son M.Barathkumar, who was studying in the 4th standard died of electrocution due to the snapping of the live wire of L.T. 3 Phase maintained by the respondents.

3. The petitioner's father lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station and sent a representation to the 5th respondent on 15.12.1999 seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner thereafter sent another representation to the Honourable Chief Minister's Cell on 10.01.2003. Thereafter, a communication was sent to the petitioner from the 4th respondent informing him that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded as compensation payable towards the death of his son M.Barathkumar. The petitioner was further asked to furnish an Indemnity Bond that he would not seek any further compensation. Not being satisfied with the reply given to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents and perused the counter affidavit.

5. It is not in dispute that the duty of maintaining the L.T. 3 Phase Line was that of the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to the snapping of the live wire. The investigation also revealed the fact that the petitioner's son died of electrocution. The respondents have also admitted in the counter affidavit that the death was caused due to snapping of the live wire. However, an explanation was given by the respondents stating that due to heavy wind and the falling of the coconut leaf the live wire got snapped resulting in the accident. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per the norms provided under the Board Proceedings (FB) No.4 (Administration Branch), dated 29.01.1998, a compensation for a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be paid for the accident caused. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.P.Srinivas that the accident being an Act of God and that the negligence is not on the part of the respondents, the claim sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be sustained and the only course that is open to the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court.

6. As discussed above, it is admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the liability to pay the compensation by the respondents is not denied. The very fact that the respondents have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- itself would exemplify the position that they accept the liability. However, it is stated that the quantum beyond the permissible limit of Rs.25,000/- cannot be paid as the said payment is ex gratia payment payable on compassionate ground. The said stand taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the liability having been admitted it is not open to the respondents to deny the just compensation. When the facts are not in dispute, this Court cannot drive a party, to approach the Civil Court, more so when a public duty is imposed upon a statutory authority and for the failure to perform such duty a citizen is put to hardship.

7. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has lost his son, a child of 9 years. To say that the petitioner is entitled to only a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the death cannot be accepted. A death of the child cannot be valued in terms of money. However, the petitioner will have to be compensated considering the undisputed fact that the child was nowhere responsible for the accident and the duty to maintain a L.T. Line rests with the respondents. Therefore, when the duty is upon the respondents it is for them to explain that there is no negligence o