The main legal point established is the liability of the Electricity Board for negligence resulting in the death of the petitioner's daughter and the application of compensation principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation for the death of the petitioner's daughter aged about 12 years who met with an accident due to electricity shock on 13.02.2008 at Kanjiravilai, Rajakkamangalam and Post, Kanyakumari District due to the negligence on the part of the respondents to the petitioner and his family.)

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards death of the petitioner's daughter due to electrocution.

2. According to the petitioner, his minor daughter aged 12 years on her way to tuition at about 6.00 a.m while she was walking, the overhead electric live wire had fallen down and she got in contact with the live electric wire and thrown away. Though she was admitted to a private hospital immediately, the doctor examined and found that she had already died due to electrocution.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Rajakkamangalam Police Station and it was registered as Crime No.41 of 2008 on 13.02.2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. In the postmortem report, it is mentioned that there is a burn injury on the left foot close to the left ankle and the death is due to electrocution. According to the petitioner, the said accident has happened only due to the non maintenance of the electric wire periodically and due to the negligent attitude on the side of the respondents electricity board.

4. The petitioner has sent a representation on 18.09.2020 and again on 30.03.2013 through registered post seeking compensation. However, there was no response from them. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. The second respondent has filed a counter contending that the said accident has happened only due to the snapping of conductor that had occurred due to the falling of a coconut leaf during heavy rain and wind. He had further contended that there is no allegation either the live wire is hanging or lying on the road in order to cause electrocution to an innocent person. The Board has further contended that they have properly maintained the electric line as per the safety norms provided in the Electricity Rules. The snapping of conductor was due to natural wear and tear. According to the respondents, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court to claim compensation.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute that the petitioner's minor daughter aged about 12 years had died due to electrocution. The respondents have only contended that the snapping of conductor had taken place due to heavy rain and wind and it is due to natural wear and tear. During the heavy rain, the respondent Board is expected to disconnect the electricity supply. However, in the present case, it has not been done. Moreover, the live wire had got snapped from the post and it had fallen down. The postmortem report reveals that the burn injuries are located on the left foot of the girl indicating that she had mistakenly stepped upon a live wire. Hence, it is clear that the accident had happened only due to negligence on the part of the respondent Electricity Board. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

8. The petitioner's daughter is aged about 12 years old on 13.02.2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2022) 1 SCC 317 ( Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another) has considered the issue of compensation in a motor accident case where the deceased is a non earning member. In the said case, the deceased was 7 year old School going boy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.14 and 16 has held as follows:

“14. In this case, it is to be noted that