The central legal point established is the liability for compensation due to negligence in maintaining electrical lines, as evidenced by the F.I.R., witness accounts, and postmortem report.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, seeking for the payment of compensation for the death of her husband, which occurred due to negligence and poor maintenance of the Electrical lines by the respondent- Board. The petitioner is living at Nagapattinam District with her 13 years son viz., Vetrivel and 2 years daughter viz., Kavya. Her husband P.Mohan (hereinafter referred as Deceased) died on 27.06.2012 due to electrocution arising out of negligence on the part of the respondents. The petitioner further submits that on 27.06.2012 at about 9 a.m., one Mr.Mani attached to the fourth respondent came to the petitioner's house and advised the deceased that there was a power shut down and informed that the branch of a coconut tree inside the house of the deceased was entrenching the HT line and behest the deceased to cut and remove the coconut branch, which touched the HT line. Believing the words of the said Mani, the deceased on the impression that there was no power at that time, climbed the coconut tree and cut the branches. At that time the severed branch fell on the HT electrical wire and the same got in contact with the deceased body as a result of which, the deceased was electrocuted and he fell down from the tree which was more than 40 feet from the earth. At that time, the petitioner, the said Mani, neighbours of the petitioner's viz., Sundarambal, Panneerselvam, Krishnamurthy were present at the scene of occurrence. Immediately, the deceased was rushed to the Government Hospital at Thiruvarur and there he was admitted as an inpatient. But, he died at about 2.30 p.m., on the same day. The Police attached to Kariyapattinam Police Station recorded a statement from the petitioner and a case in Crime No.68/2012 was registered under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. (Electric Shock) on 28.06.2012.

2. The petitioner further submits that the incident took place only due to the negligence of the respondents and non maintenance of safety clips to see that there was no joggling of the lines and the death of her husband was due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondents. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- monthly from his avocation. The petitioner had great hopes and plans for the future of her children with the earning of her husband. Their family was a poor family and they had great hopes on the deceased. Further, they were deprived of his love and companionship. The incident was solely on account of the negligence of the respondents and as such, the respondents are bound to pay compensation for the unfortunate death of her husband. With the result, the petitioner had sent the representation to the respondents praying for the compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs for her family expenses and for giving good education to her children on 12.08.2013. The petitioner further submits that the fourth respondent has sent a reply that the accident which occurred on 27.06.2012 was due to the deceased's negligence and he wantonly climbed the coconut tree without informing the respondent and cut the branch and fell down from the tree. It was further contended that the respondent Board is in no way connected with the said incident. The same was communicated by him vide his order dated 10.09.2013. The second respondent has given the reply in the same line of the aforesaid fourth respondent's reply but he added further narration that the respondent Board was wrongly implicated in the said occurrence by the Police and the death was due to the High Tension electrical wire contact with the severed branch of coconut tree which consequentially got in contact with the deceased body as a result of which, the deceased was electrocuted and fell down from the tree. The same was communicated by him vide his order dated 26.09.2013. Both the respondents rejected the petitioner's representation. But the respondent-Police on the investigation of the case had sent a report to t