The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Electricity Department to pay compensation for death due to negligence, emphasizing the need for just compensation based on relevant factors and principles.

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of petitoner's wife, caused by electrocution due to the negligence of the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Agriculturist and residing in Vinayagampattu Village, Puducherry, along with his family and that he is having two sons. On 17.5.2009 around 5 p.m., petitioner's wife Malathi aged 47 years went to farm lands for plucking the grass, to be given to cow. As she did not return home till 6.00 p.m., petitioner along with few neighbours went to the farm land in search of her and found his wife lying in the land, holding the disconnected electric wire in her hand. Immediately petitioner approached the second respondent and electricity connection was switched off. When the petitioner lifted his wife, he found that she was already dead. A complaint was given to the Vinayagampattu Police Station on the same day and a FIR was registered. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the post mortem report clearly states that the death was due to electrocution. According to the petitioner, lying of live wire on the land had happened due to the negligence on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore petitioner is claiming compensation from the respondents to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1987) 1 SCC 395 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India).

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing coolie work and submitted a calculation memo for the claim of compensation.

4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that a fatal electric accident had occurred to S. Malathy, wife of petitioner on 17.5.2009 in Vinayagampet Village, Mannadipet Commune and on receipt of information, the staff of the Electricity Department rushed to the spot after switching off the power supply. Malathy had come into contact with a snapped live agricultural service connection line and she died on the spot. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the casurina tree cultivated in the land belonging to one Pitchaikaran of Vinayagampet village fell on the electric line and the electric line snapped due to the impact. Malathy could not spot the snapped line in the darkness and inadvertently came into contact with the live wire and was electrocuted. According to the respondents, the electric line snapped only due to the fall of casurina tree on account of heavy wind. The respondents also stated that the Electricity Department staff periodically inspect all the Low Tension and High Tension lines and are taking proper measures for the maintenance of all lines. It is also stated that regular patrolling is also carried out. In spite of such vigilant action, some times such accidents happen, which is beyond the control of the Electricity Department and therefore the Electricity Department cannot be held responsible for the death of petitioner's wife Malathy. It is also stated that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for claiming compensation and this writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate (Puducherry), appearing for the respondents.

6. The death of petitioner's wife Malathy due to electrocution as stated above is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. The age of the deceased Malathy and that she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month are also not in dispute. The contention of the respondents is that only due to fall of casurina tree the live wire snapped, resulting in the death of petitioner's wife. This tragedy could have been avoided, if the staff of the Electricity Department verified the same and took necessary precautionary measures. Hence respondents are vicariously liable to pay compensation to the