1. Wife, who lost her husband due to electrocution on 11.5.2006, has sought for compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs from the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, her husband was a fisherman. On 11.5.2006, when he was returning home, at 10.00 p.m., along with his brother, he came in contact with a live wire, which fell on him and he died instantaneously. The factum of death was reported to Sayalkudi Police Station on 12.5.2006 and that a criminal case was registered in Crime No. 160 of 2006. Post-mortem was done on 12.5.2006. The Post-mortem doctor gave a report that the death was due to electric shock. For the death of the petitioner’s husband, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of accident, her husband was aged 29 years. He is survived by the petitioner and a 2-1/2 years old female child. It is her further contention that as fisherman, he earned Rs. 7,000/- per month. She was wholly depending on her husband and after his demise, the family is helpless, put on financial constraint and mental agony. Though representations were made to the respondents seeking compensation, there was no response. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief, stated supra.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Ramnad Electricity Distribution Circle, Ramanathapuram, in his counter affidavit has raised a preliminary objection stating that the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate civil Court for compensation. Without prejudice to the same, he has submitted that the petitioner has to prove the age of the deceased, earning capacity and other factual aspects, which cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1603 : (2000) 4 SCC 543 : (2000) 3 MLJ 124 ; and (ii) SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram AIR 2005 SC 3971 : (2005) 6 SCC 156 .

4. The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram, has further submitted that due to unprecedented heavy rain, the electric line, though properly connected, were mutilated and due to that, the accident had occurred. The respondents have denied negligence on the part of the Board in maintaining the wires. He has also submitted that even in the Police complaint, no allegation against the Electricity Board has been levelled. According to him, the petitioner has to prove the manner of accident and negligence on the part of the Board. For the abovesaid reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. Perusal of the First Information Report No. 160 of 2006, registered on 12.5.2006, on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi, shows that around 10.00 p.m., on 11.5.2006, when the petitioner’s husband was returning home, after completing his work, an overhead electric wire fell on him. Though an attempt has been made to rescue, he died due to electrocution. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, on the dead body of the petitioner’s husband, has clearly noticed electric burn injuries and certified that the death was due to electrocution. Thus, there cannot be any dispute about the cause of death.

7. The respondents in their counter affidavits have denied the negligence on the ground that due to unprecedented heavy rain, the electric lines, though properly connected, were mutilated and in the result, the accident had occurred. Insofar as the maintenance of the overhead electric wires and the consequential liability of the Board to pay compensation in case of death, due to electrocution, there are many instances, wherein the objection, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and further contention that only a suit has to be filed by claiming compensation, has been rejected. Death due to electrocution is an adm