The petitioner, who is the father of the deceased Victor, seeks a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation to him.

2. On 27.09.2010 at about 5.00 p.m., the petitioner's eldest son viz., Victor, who was then aged about 27 years, came into contact with a live wire that had snapped down in the vacant plot which is opposite to the petitioner's house, resulting in instantaneous electrocution death.

3. Mr. K.R. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to the negligence and lack of maintenance on the part of the Electricity Board, the victim was snapping of the live LT wire. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the deceased Victor, who was then aged about 27 years at the time of his death and was carrying on the profession of the plumbing, is entitled to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Rameshuwar learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the LT line had snapped only due to the heavy wind blow and rain on 27.09.2010, which amounted to an “Act of God”, as there was no negligence on the part of the respondents and that the accident was beyond the control of the officials of the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would vehemently submit that even otherwise, the proper remedy is only to file a Civil suit, since the disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case. In any event, the learned counsel submits that the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive and arbitrary.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The first question that needs to be addressed is whether the snapping of OH-LT live-wire due to heavy wind and rain, would amount to an “Act of God”. It is needless to mention that prior to installation of live-wire, careful precaution must be taken to ensure that the electric wires which are prone to come in contact with the public if snapped in times of heavy rain and wind, are installed with utmost durability and endeavour to withstand such unforeseen calamity. Rigorous periodical inspection needs to be conducted to such installation to avoid any untoward incident. Absence of the precaution would amount to negligence on the part of the respondents. It is common knowledge that rain tends to become heavy only after gradual and constant down-pour thereby turning into storm or gale wind, which are always predictable and hence precautions like cutting down the power supply to the openly installed live wires and transformer is essential during such untoward incidents.

7. In the case on hand, the live wire, to which, the deceased Victor came into contact, had snapped either due to poorly installed electric pole or lack of proper and periodical maintenance of the same. The respondents do not seem to have taken any precaution to cut down the power supply, when heavy rains and winds were anticipated. I do not find any of the reasonings put forth by the learned counsel for the second respondent in its counter affidavit as well as during his oral submissions to the effect that the accident was due to an “Act of God”. On the other hand, the unfortunate incident is attributable due to the negligence on the part of the concerned officials of the second respondent.

8. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the proper recourse or remedy is before the civil Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's son had died due to electrocution of snapped wire. The petitioner's son was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and he was a Plumber by profession. Even this has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot contend that there are mixed question of facts, when the basic facts have already been answered through the pleadings in this writ petition. It is well settled principle of law th