1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for the death of the son of the petitioner, viz., Rajendran.

2. Heard Mr.S.Umapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned Standing Counsel for Electricity Board, appearing for the second respondent.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the deceased Mr.Rajendran, was a coolie engaged in civil construction work. He died due to electric shock, when he tried to save one Mr.Perumal and minor girl Shanmugapriya, who also suffered electrocution due to leakage of electricity from nearby electricity post at 10.00 am on 6.12.2005. It is also the case of the petitioner, the mother of the deceased, that the said Perumal also died in electrocution. FIR was also lodged in Crime No.3644 of 2005 in V-3 J.J. Nagar Police Station. The post-mortem report clearly states that the deceased Rajendran, died due to the electric shock. The death of the petitioner's son was caused due to the carelessness and negligence of the respondents. At the time of death, the deceased Rajendran was earning a sum of Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day. Petitioner made repeated requests to the respondents for payment of compensation for the act of negligence on the part of the electricity board. She also issued a lawyer's notice on 15.1.2008 demanding compensation. Since it did not evoke any response, the widowed mother was forced to seek compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by filing the writ petition.

4. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable since disputed questions of fact are involved and therefore, the only remedy to the petitioner is to file a civil suit. It is also stated that due to monsoon, there was heavy rain continuously for three days and as a result there was stagnation of water. On receipt of information, the officials of the 2nd respondent immediately rushed to the accident area and disconnected the power supply in that area. Respondent board has checked the underground cable in the area and removed the damaged cable and replaced it with a new cable. On investigating the cause of accident, it is learnt that efforts have been made by the local residents of that area to drain out the stagnated water by digging the road with crow bar and JCB vehicle. Due to above said work, the underground cable would have got disturbed and could have further damaged and got punctured by the pressure of gravel stones due to passing of heavy vehicles on that road. Due to which the electric current may have exposed and leaked through the stagnated water on the road and thus caused the accident.

5. On considering the rival contentions, it is clear that the respondents tried to wriggle out of their liability by stating that there is a dispute on fact, which apparently is not correct. The allegation of the respondents is that local residents of that area digged the road with crow bar and JCB vehicle and due to above work of the local residents the electrocution occurred and the deceased died and therefore, there is no vicarious liability on the electricity board for the death caused. Even assuming that some local residents of that area digged the road, it is for the Electricity Board to ensure that the electricity cables are maintained in good order. It is also admitted by the respondents that the water leakage due to rainy season was a factor that caused the fatal accident. That may be true. Admittedly, the deceased died due to electrocution in a public road and that too when the deceased tried to save two other persons, who suffered electrocution and consequently died.

6. Death due to electrocution is an admitted fact. When the petitioner's son had not committed