LILLY STANISLAUS Vs. CHAIRMAN T N E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed for direction against the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs by way of compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of one Stanislaus, who was working in Sri Kutchi Milan (Madras) Charitable Trust, Purasawalkam and they have a married daughter apart from one un-married son Ruben and un-married daughter Jaculine. On 14. 06. 1996, in the early morning at 5. 00 a. m. the petitioner's husband went to procure milk from the nearby Aavin Milk Booth. On the night there was heavy rain and when her husband was passing in Anna Street, near the tea shop, he had to step on the live wire, snapped from electrical post No. 146 and he was thrown down due to electrocution. One boy by name Nataraj, tried to pull him and he was also electrocuted and it was after two hours electric supply was disconnected and in the meantime, the petitioner's husband died on the spot.

(3.) THE respondents have filed counter affidavit. While it is admitted that the petitioner's husband died due to electrocution on the road on 14. 06. 1996 at 5. 30 hours in the morning, it is the case of the respondent Electricity Board that immediately on receiving such information over phone, a representative of the Board went to the spot and at that time the third respondent was informed that the victim was admitted in the hospital for treatment. On enquiry, the respondent Board found that a person aged about 55 years was snapped by the live conductor and his name was Stanislaus. It is also admitted that the electrocution took place on the road when the said Stanislaus was proceeding from his house to nearby milk booth. It is also the case of the respondent Board that it was due to heavy storm and rain on 14. 06. 1996, the accident has taken place. However, it is the case of the respondent Board that the Board has been maintaining the poles and wires in good condition. It is also the further case of the respondent Board that the accident took place due to heavy rain and it is an act of God beyond the control of Electricity Board and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Board. The allegation of the petitioner that the accident took place due to the carelessness of the Board is denied. It is also further stated that without prejudice to the above said contention the compensation claimed is high.