Judgment : S. TAMILVANAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 55 of 1989 dated 24.9.1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. 2. The appellant herein are the plaintiffs in the suit before the Trial Court. The defendants are the legal representatives of the deceased one Arumuga Padayatchi who died on 9.12.1972 due to electrocution at Kallakurichi. The appellants, being the dependents and legal representatives, had filed the suit seeking compensation for-, the death of their bread winner “of their family against the respondent”Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In support of their claim, the first appellant herein was examined as P.W.1, apart from marking Exhibits A-1 to A-18. On the side of the respondent no witnesses was examined and no document was marked. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. Mr. A. Thamizharasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that after the death of Arumuga Padayatchi the appellants, being the dependents of the deceased, approached the respondent for getting compensation. However, they were asked to produce the death certificate, legal heir certificate, income certificate and other documents one after the other. The appellants being the legal heirs subsequently approached the Taluk Legal Aid Committee at Ulundurpettai and they asked them to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Cuddalore. Though the respondent had originally agreed to pay compensation to the appellants, they suggested a minimum amount as compensation and that was also not paid. Subsequently, the respondent through a letter, Exhibit A-11, dated 30.10.1987 informed the appellants that their claim is barred by limitation. Hence, they filed the suit thorough District Legal Services, Villupuram. According to the learned counsel the delay was not caused due to the negligence of the appellants but only due to the procedure followed by the respondent and other officials. The Trial Court without legally going into the merits of the case has dismissed the suit. 4. Mr. N. Muthusamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend “that though Arumuga Padayatchi died on 9.12.1972 the suit was filed, only in the year 1980 and taken on file on 12.10.1988 nearly after a lapse of 16 years. The Trial Court without legally going into the merits of the case has dismissed the suit. 4. Mr. N. Muthusamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend “that though Arumuga Padayatchi died on 9.12.1972 the suit was filed, only in the year 1980 and taken on file on 12.10.1988 nearly after a lapse of 16 years. In support of this contention the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the findings of the Trial Court at paragraph number seven of the judgment, wherein the Trial Court has held that the suit was barred by limitation. According to the Court below the suit would have been filed on or before 16.10.1987. It is seen from the findings of the Trial Court that the appellants had approached the respondent after the death of the Arumuga Padayatchi. It is also seen that as per Exhibit A-1, dated 12.5.1975 the appellants were asked to produce the legal heir certificates. Exhibit A-5 is the death certificate of Arumuga Padayatchi. Subsequently, the Tahsildar issued legal heir certificate dated 18.4.1984 which was marked as Exhibit A-2 and the income certificate dated 4.9.1975 of the deceased was marked as Exhibit A-4. From the findings of the Court below with regard to the letter of the respondent marked as Exhibit A-7 dated 29.4.1987 and Exhibit A-8, dated 15.5.1987, Exhibit A-9 dated 7.5.1984, it is clear that the respondent had not disputed that the deceased Arumuga Padayatchi died due to electrocution. 5. However, as per Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, it is a mandatory duty on the part of the Electricity Board. to adopt safety measures‘ in order to prevent unexpected electrocution on account of severance of live wire, due to storm or speedy wind. Rule 91 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, reads as follows: “ 91. Safety and protective devices: ( 1) Every overhead line, (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. (2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified in sub-rule (1). (3) the owner of every high and extra-high voltage overhead line shall make adequate arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent unauthorised persons from ascending any of the support of such overhead lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement concrete poles and pre-stressed cement concrete poles without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, I Sections and channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily climbed upon for the purpose of this rule.” If the death is caused due to severance of live electric wire on account of heavy rain and cyclone, it could not be presumed that the death was caused only due to the negligence of the authorities, however which cannot be said that it was an act of God as contended by the respondent herein. Even in such circumstances, the Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation. 6. The Trial Court has also given its finding that Arumuga Padayatchi died only due to the negligence of the respondent/officials. As per Exhibits A-7 to A-9 letters, the respondent herein, had not disputed the right of the appellants in claiming compensation for the death of the bread winner of their family. However, as per the letter Exhibit All, dated 30.10.1987, the respondent has denied the claim of the appellants. Therefore, as per Exhibit A-13, dated 16.3.1988, the appellants approached Ulundurpet Taluk Legal Services Committee and thus they approached the District Legal Services Authority, Villupuram. It is evident from Exhibit A-15, the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet made in C.M.P. No. 505 of 1984, that the death of Arumuga Padayatchi had been published in news papers only after the legitimate claim of the appellants who had approached the legal services authority and accordingly the suit was filed on 12.10.1988. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit claim cannot be construed as time barred for the purpose of deciding the limitation. The Trial Court has held that the suit is barred by Limitation. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit claim cannot be construed as time barred for the purpose of deciding the limitation. The Trial Court has held that the suit is barred by Limitation. As per Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, referred to by the Court below, the limitation is one year, but as per this article compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in the territories to which this Act ends, is one year, from the date of the act or omission had taken place. However, I am of the view that, Article 72 of the Limitation Act is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. In the instant case, the appellants filed the suit seeking compensation on account of the death caused due to electrocution and the claim has been made by the dependents of the deceased before the authorities. Only as per Exhibit A-11, dated 30.10.1987, the respondent had refused the claim of the appellants. In the earlier letters the respondent had not disputed the claim. Under the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation, the period of limitation has been relaxed in order to protect the interest of the dependents. The appellants herein are also in the same footing in claiming damages from the respondents. As per Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963, any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule thereunder, the period of limitation is three years, when the right to sue accrues. 9. In the instant case, it is clear that the necessity arose to file the suit only on 30.10.1987, since there was sudden refusal of the claim of the appellants, under Exhibit A-11, which is the date on which the right to sue accrues. Therefore, as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the suit has to be filed within three years. Here in the instant case, the appellants has filed the suit within three years from the date on which the right to sue accrues. Therefore, this Court is of view that the suit is not barred by limitation. Therefore, as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the suit has to be filed within three years. Here in the instant case, the appellants has filed the suit within three years from the date on which the right to sue accrues. Therefore, this Court is of view that the suit is not barred by limitation. As per the evidence available, it is seen that the deceased was hale and healthy on the date of his death and he was the bread winner of his family and therefore, considering the same, the claim of Rs. 50,000/-could not be construed as exorbitant. 10. Mr. N. Muthusamy, learned counsel for the respondents while advancing his arguments contended that the appellants are not entitled to claim any interest from the date of their original claim. It has been established in this appeal that the appellants are entitled to claim Rs. 50,000/-as compensation with interest and costs. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that, it would be just and reasonable to allow the interest only from the date of filing of the suit. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the view that the appellants being the dependents of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation from the respondent. As discussed earlier, the appellants are entitled to claim a just and reasonable minimum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-from the respondent with 9% interest from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the respondent herein is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-as compensation with 9% interest from 12.10.1988, the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realisation with proportionate costs.