The court applied the doctrine of strict liability and held that the petitioner proved that the death was due to electrocution and fastened liability only against respondents 3 and 4 for payment of compensation.

1. The petitioner, who has lost his son, due to electrocution in an agricultural field, has sought for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of his son.

2. According to him, their family members were agricultural labourers. Due to old age, he could not work and their family was solely depending on his son's income. That on 21.12.2001, his son, Thiru. Thaganapandian, went out to pasture goats at the foot of the Hill. In the Evening, he went to the foot of the hill in search of the missing goats and at that time, he contacted with a live electric fencing laid by respondents 3 and 4, in their lands and died on the spot, due to electrocution. But the respondents 3 and 4 have removed his body and placed it, half a kilometer away from the spot. The Sub-Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.330 of 2001, against respondents 3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 304A and 201 IPC. As per the Post-Mortem Certificate, the death of the petitioner's son was reported due to electrocution, when he contacted the live electric fencing.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that the death was due to improper supervision of respondents 1 and 2 and that they were also aware of the fact that respondents 3 and 4 have illegally taken electricity from the main line, for fencing their field. According to him, if respondents 1 and 2 have taken proper steps against respondents 3 and 4 for the illegal use of electricity, for fencing the agricultural field, death would have not occurred. He has further submitted that his son was unmarried and that his family was solely dependant on him. He was aged 25 years, a shepherd and earned Rs.2,500/-per month.

4. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in K. Samikkannu v. Union of India reported in 1997 (I) CTC 275, D. Matsa Gandhi v. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board reported in 2000 (III) CTC 24, M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari reported in 2002 (I) CTC 362, K. Sundari v. The State of Tamil Nadu [W.P.No.19668 of 1999, dated 15.04.2009] and Ponnu Sankan v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (3) CTC 740, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the duty of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to inspect, as to whether, the supply given to the agriculturists, is used properly or not and since the Field Officer is responsible for the day to day usage and maintenance of electric line, they cannot plead ignorance of the power supply given for fencing of the agricultural land, owned by respondents 3 and 4 and in such circumstances, when the Post-Mortem Certificate clearly indicates that the death was due to electrocution, respondents 1 and 2 are also liable to pay compensation. According to him, negligence of the employees of the respondents 1 and 2 is per se evident and therefore, the claim made against them is maintainable. As regards the cause of death and the illegal activity of respondents 3 & 4, he also drew the attention of this Court to the contents in the letter, dated 05.01.2002 of the Panchayat President, Nakasalem Muncipality, Alathur Taluk, Perambular District addressed to Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thuraiyur and also to the letter, dated 25.12.2001 of the Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M/North), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thuraiyur addressed to the Inspector of Police, Padalur.

5. On the basis of the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit, Mr. Gunaraj, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that respondents 1 and 2 are not responsible for the death of petitioner's son and that therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that the Board is responsible for maintaining the main line only and that too, for the main supply post of the TNEB and that they are not aware or responsible for the electrical fencing put up by respondents 3 and 4. He also submitted that FIR in Cr.No.330 of 2001, under Sections 304 A and 201