Ratios
a. When an offending structure that may damage the electrical installations were put up by anyone, the Electricity Board is responsible to remove the same immediately.
b. In case of accident by electrocution, the burden of proving the absence of negligence is heavy on the Electricity Board.

1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of his mother due to electrocution.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS:

2. The petitioner and his mother, by name Nallammal were proceeding to Thuvarankuruchi from their Village on 9 March 2009 and their purpose was to purchase household materials and clothes. After alighting from the bus, they were coming out of Thuvarankuruchi bus stand by walk. At that point of time, the overhead electric wire running across the road got snapped and fell on the neck of his mother. Suddenly, she got electrocuted and fell down. Since the electric steel wires circled around the neck of his mother, she sustained grievous injury on her neck. The petitioner tried to rescue by pulling her. However, he was not in a position to proceed further, as he would also be electrocuted. The mother of the petitioner, after screaming and crying in front of his own eyes, died. The electricity was thereafter switched off and the body of his mother was removed for post-mortem.

3. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station and a case in Crime No.85 of 2009 was registered against the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

4. According to the petitioner, his mother was electrocuted only due to the negligence and carelessness of the officials of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent was not managing the electric line properly and that was the sole reason for snapping the electric line.

5. The mother of the petitioner was aged 47 years. She was employed as a construction worker earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day. She was survived by three sons including the petitioner. The death of his mother caused immense pain to the petitioner, besides perennial loss to the family. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition praying for an order to pay compensation estimated at Rs.10,00,000/-.

THE DEFENCE:

6. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, disputed the allegations regarding negligence. According to the fourth respondent, the Board has been maintaining the electric line very regularly. The fourth respondent contended that a political party has erected a flex board in the bus stand area and due to heavy wind, the said advertisement board/flex board suddenly fell on the electricity board lines passing through the said street. Accordingly, the electrical wires snapped and the mother of the petitioner died due to electrocution. The fourth respondent further contended that the negligence cannot be attributed to them and the incident has happened, only because of erection of flex board by a political party.

7. I have head the learned counsel for the parties.

ANALYSIS:

8. The facts that the mother of the petitioner died on 09.03.2009 on account of electrocution and the instantaneous nature of death were all admitted by the fourth respondent. The first information recorded by the Inspector of Police, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station also shows that it was only on account of the negligence of the fourth respondent that the incident has happened. Therefore, the incident is admitted.

9. The next question is as to whether the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was responsible for the incident in question.

10. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that the incident has happened only on account of erection of a flex board by a political party. The said flex board fell on the electric lines passing through the bus stand area and accordingly, the mother of the petitioner was electrocuted.

11. The fourth respondent very clearly admitted the erection of a flex board near the electric line. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit to indicate as to when the flex board was erected. The first respondent has not filed any counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The Electricity