This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the petitioner's husband viz., Mr.Subramani Konar, aged 55 years, due to electrocution.

2. The petitioner is residing at 7-A, Muniyandi Koil Street, Pajanai Madam, Keerathurai, Madurai, with her family, depending on the income source of her husband. The petitioner's husband was rearing six cows and supplying milk in their area. Her husband was a Milkman and also derived income from rearing cows and milching the cows in various houses of their area. The petitioner's husband and her son Ramakrishnan used to milch the cows at the house of Arokia Mary, Selvam, Asaithambi and Gnanam and various houses and derived income from rearing cows and selling milk.

3. On 06.08.2011, at about 4.30 p.m., her husband and her son went to milch the cows near Guru Pillai Hotel, located at Mahalipatti Road. While her husband was trying to untie the calf, which was tied in a cement slab near the electric post, he suddenly, slipped and fell down. While falling down, he caught-hold the electric post near by him. The boxes in the electric post were in open stage and her husband's hand touched it and he was electrocuted. Due to the electrocution, the petitioner's husband was thrown into the nearby drainage. He was taken in an auto and admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital for treatment. The Doctors informed that her husband died due to electrocution. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, B-4, Keerathurai L. & O. Police Station. A case was registered in Crime No.872 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Doctors of Government Rajaji Hospital issued a postmortem certificate, dated 07.08.2011, stating that her husband died due to electrocution.

4. The petitioner's husband was earning Rs.300/- per day. He died leaving behind the petitioner and a widowed daughter, aged about 42 years, who have no issues. His sudden death caused immense pain and suffering to the family members. Therefore, the respondents are bound to pay the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of her husband due to electrocution.

5. The petitioner's husband died due to failure on the part of the respondents to take proper safeguard to protect the public from the heavy load of electricity by providing good boxes with closed doors in the electric poles.

6. A writ petition claiming compensation is maintainable, as Fundamental Right has been violated and the award of compensation by this Court is under public law. The respondents, for their failure to carry out the public duty, are liable to pay compensation.

7. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.

8. The first respondent filed counter affidavit denying their liability to pay compensation. According to the first respondent, all the electric posts are maintained by the respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner's husband ought to have kept the cows in a Stall and milched the cows. He cannot tie the cows and calf in the street and milched the cows. The petitioner's husband died due to his own negligence. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Respondents 3 to 6 filed counter affidavit denying the liability to pay the compensation. The respondents 3 to 6 have stated that the first respondent Corporation is maintaining the electricity service connection for street lights and therefore, the first respondent is responsible for maintaining the electricity service connection appropriately. Therefore, the respondents 3 to 6 are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. They have also stated that the negligent act alleged by the petitioner must be proved with evidence. Therefore, the suit alone is proper remedy and not petition under Article 226 of the