ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 20.04.2016, whereby the petitioner's claim for compensation for the death of her husband Ilangovan due to electrocution, was rejected in view of the fact that the accident was not due to negligence attributable to the respondent Board.

2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband received an interview call letter from 'Airtel' Company and planned to attend the interview at Chennai on 23.09.2015. On 22.09.2015, while her husband was waiting near the 'Tollgate' at Thirumangalam, he went to the road side to relieve himself. While returning, he was trapped in a live electric wire cut off from the nearby electric post. Her husband got electrocuted, suffered burn injuries all over his body and succumbed to his injuries sustained due to electric shock.

3. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the third respondent for compensation for the death of her husband due to electrocution as evident from the Final Opinion of the Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thirumangalam, wherein, it was stated that “the deceased appears to have died of cardiorespiratory arrest due to electrocution”. The above claim of the petitioner seeking compensation was however rejected by the third respondent on the premise that the petitioner's husband died because of electrocution due to snapping of live wires, is untrue. The impugned order sought to place reliance upon the statement of the owner of Jeya Hotel located close to the place where the petitioner's husband was electrocuted and also the statement of Mr.P.Jeganathan, Poojari of Salaiyamman Temple. It was stated by Mrs.Jeya, owner of Jeya Hotel that the wire was intact even a few minutes before the petitioner's husband was found dead. Similarly, Mr.P.Jeganathan, Poojari of Salaiyamman Temple had stated that while returning home after performing pooja, he found that the service wires were intact. It was thus observed that it is not clear as to why the petitioner's husband had got close to the service wire and that in any view there was no negligence on the part of the respondents, which caused death of the petitioner's husband, thus the claim for compensation stood rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the third respondent Board. If the Board had taken due care and had not been negligent in installing/maintaining the electric post, the accident would not have occurred at all. It was further submitted that the petitioner does not have any employment or income from any other source. After the demise of her husband, she has been living alone with two children and finding it extremely difficult to make both ends meet. That the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner not only for the monetary loss but also for loss of love and affection and the mental agony suffered. That the responsibility of supplying electric energy in that locality was statutorily cast on the respondents and if energy so transmitted causes injury or death, the primary liability to compensate is on the supplier of electric energy.

5. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board that there is no proof of negligence on the part of the respondent Board, which caused the accident resulting in death of the petitioner's husband. Both the witnesses, namely, the owner of Jeya Hotel and Mr.P.Jeganathan have stated that the wire was intact even few hours before the death of the petitioner's husband. That being the case, the claim for compensation cannot be justified.

6. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials on record.

7. Actions in tort and negligence are first required to be established by the petitioner/claimant. Mere fact that the claimant had suffered loss as a result of coming in contact with a live service wire by itself may not render the Boa