ORDER 1. The poor lady with a fond hope of fetching water was walking on the road without knowing that she was once for all walking away from the world. 2. On 9.2.2006 at about 05.30pm., the petitioner‘s wife was going for procuring water which was distributed by the corporation of Chennai. The electric line which was running overhead got snapped and fell on her, resulting in her death. For the death of his wife, the petitioner is before this Court seeking compensation on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the Electricity Board. 3. It is contended by the Electricity Board that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent board and the accident was due to “Act of God” and therefore, no negligence could be attributed to the respondent board. Mr. P. Gunaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the accident occurred on 9.10.2006, whereas the writ petition was filed belatedly on 10.5.2010 and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and he relied upon the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports AIR 1970 SC 769 : (1969) 1 SCC 185 . 4. Secondly, he submitted that for claiming compensation, Article 226 cannot be invoked and as disputed question of facts are involved, the proper forum is Civil Court which is competent to adjudicate the issue. He relied upon judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Others AIR 2000 SC 1603 : (2000) 4 SCC 543 : (2000) 3 MLJ 124 , Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orrisa Ltd., (Gridco) and Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt) and Another AIR 1999 SC 3412 : (1999) 7 SCC 298 and Shakuntala Devi (Smt) v. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and Others (1995) 2 SCC 369 . 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the death of the petitioner‘s wife. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the death of the petitioner‘s wife. The aforesaid facts are admitted in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent which is extracted hereunder; “Without prejudice to the above writ petition the respondent respectfully submits that on 9.10.2006, at about 6 p.m., in the evening near Avadi Tank Bund Street, when Thiru P. Haridass wireman and Thiru. P. Ganesan, helper were at their routine inspection of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board lines and while passing through Old Agragharam Street there was a large gathering in the Tank Bund Street end. On verification the above, staffs were informed that Low Tension Over Head Line got snapped suddenly due to sudden movement of large number of crows and as a result of which, the aluminum conductor got snapped and heavy spark occurred due to which the mishap had taken place. At that time, a lady by name Shanthi was walking in the road for procuring water from the Municipality Water Lorry which was parked in the junction and the neutral over head line snapped and fell on her, as a result, she sustained electrical burns and she was immediately admitted in Ramachandra Medical College and Hospital at Porur and though first aid was granted she succumbed to the injuries. Immediately after the mishap, the supply was restored after the interruption. Therefore, the first respondent officials are not responsible for the accident, since adequate maintenance was carried out and as the accident had occurred due to vismajor and Act of God and beyond the control of officials of the first respondent. Inasmuch as disputed questions of facts are involved in this case, the proper remedy is to file a Civil Suit.” 7. Though the first respondent admitted about the incident, in the counter affidavit, it is still contended that the officials of the first respondent were not responsible for the accident and the accident occurred due to the “Act of God”. Inasmuch as disputed questions of facts are involved in this case, the proper remedy is to file a Civil Suit.” 7. Though the first respondent admitted about the incident, in the counter affidavit, it is still contended that the officials of the first respondent were not responsible for the accident and the accident occurred due to the “Act of God”. The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit stating the basis for the accident reads as follows; “Low Tension Over Head Line got snapped suddenly due to sudden movement of large number of crows and as a result of which, the aluminum conductor got snapped and heavy spark occurred due to which the mishap had taken place.” By no stretch of imagination, the sudden movement of large number of crows could result in snapping of aluminum conductor as alleged. This itself would prove that the low tension overhead lines were not properly maintained and the lines were unable to withstand even the weight of the crows. Therefore, no further proof is necessary that the lines were not properly maintained and there was absolute negligence on the part of the respondent board. 8. When the accident was caused because of the negligence the 1st respondent Electricity Board, the 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation for the loss of a precious life. The defence that the accident occurred because of the act of God cannot be accepted in view of the negligence of the officials of the respondent board to maintain the lines properly. Maintaining the wire lines is statutory duty of the electricity board. Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 speaks about safety and protective devises which 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 consumer‘s 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).” From the above rule it is very clear that it is mandatory rather obligatory on the part of the officials to protect the lines properly by the device for rendering the lines electrically harmless when it broke at the time of accident. When it is found that the live wire carrying electricity is not properly maintained, it is an act of negligence. 9. Though it is stated that disputed question of facts are involved in this case and proper remedy is to file a civil suit, from the facts mentioned above it is evident that there is no question of disputed facts as everything is admitted. Therefore, there is no necessity to drive the petitioner to approach the civil Court that too after a period of five years of the incident. In view of this, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board is not applicable as facts are admitted in this case. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board relying upon the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (supra) strenuously contended that the delay would defeat the rights of the petitioner. No doubt, usually delay and laches would defeat the rights of the parties. However, in this case, the petitioner lost his life partner. Merely because he kept quite for 4 years it does not mean that he lost the right to come before this Court under Article 226 for compensation. The petitioner might have been under shock and he would not have been out of the mental agony caused due to loss of his wife. In such a situation, the technical plea, delay and laches cannot be employed against the petitioner. Moreover, the Hon‘ble Apex Court recently in M. Sudakar v. V. Manokaran and Others (2011) 4 SCC 484 : LNIND 2010 SC 1194 : (2011) 2 MLJ 630 held that delay and laches do not bar the jurisdiction of the Court and it is a matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction. In view of that, the delay does not bar the jurisdiction. 11. In view of that, the delay does not bar the jurisdiction. 11. That apart, the children of the petitioner who were aged 13 and 9 years at the time of accident, lost love, affection and care of their mother throughout their life which cannot be compensated by any amount of money. Therefore, the delay and laches cannot come in the way of granting relief to the petitioner and his children. As this Court finds that the negligence on the part of the respondent board caused the accident which resulted in death of the petitioner‘s wife, the respondent board is liable to compensate the petitioner. 12. The next is to determine the quantum of compensation, payable to the petitioner. This Court determines the compensation as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act . 13. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board that there is no proof for age and income of the deceased, a perusal of the post mortem reported dated 10.10.2006 would reveal that the deceased was aged about 35 years. Therefore, since it is based on expert opinion, the age shown in the Post-mortem report is accepted and her age is taken as 35 years at the time of death. 14. Though the petitioner contended that his wife was doing vegetable vending business, there is no proof available to that effect. However her role as a home-maker cannot be denied by the respondent. The services of home-maker have been considered by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others 2001 ACJ 1735 : AIR 2001 SC 3218 : (2001) 8 SCC 197 : 2001-II-LLJ-1559 . In that case, in a fire accident occurred in Tata Nagar, many people lost their lives. While calculating the compensation in respect of death of house wife, the monthly income of housewife was determined at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-. Similarly, in New India Assuarance Company Ltd. v. Kalpana (Smt) and Others (2007) 3 SCC 538 : LNIND 2007 SC 56 , in the absence of any material evidence, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court determined the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs. 3,000/-. In view of the above, the monthly contribution of the petitioner‘s wife is determined at Rs. 3,000/-. 15. 3,000/-. In view of the above, the monthly contribution of the petitioner‘s wife is determined at Rs. 3,000/-. 15. As the age of the victim is already determined at 35 years, as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act , the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 16. The Monthly contribution determined is Rs. 3,000/-. The yearly contribution is (3000 x 12) = Rs. 36,000/-. The loss of dependancy or loss of income (36000 x 16) = Rs. 5,76,000/-. 16. The petitioner lost his life companion and therefore, he has to be compensated for the same and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded. The son who was aged about 13 years and the daughter who was aged about 9 years, lost their mother through out their life. The care, love, affection and assistance of a mother for the daughter during her adolescent age, attaining puberty as well as during her pregnancy are very vital and important and the role of the mother cannot be played by anyone else. Therefore, she should also be compensated suitably. Therefore, the minor son and daughter are to be awarded Rs. 25,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For transportation and funeral expenses, together a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. In fine a sum of Rs. 6,61,000/- is awarded as compensation payable by the 1st respondent board in the following manner. 1. Loss of income = Rs. 5,76,000/- 2. Loss of companionship = Rs. 25,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection to the son and daughter = Rs. 50,000/- 4. For funeral and transportation = Rs. 10,000/- Total = Rs. 6,61,000/- 17. Though the accident occurred on 9.10.2006, the petitioner sent communication to the 2nd respondent on 20.2.2008 and a representation to the 1st respondent on 24.12.2009 and filed writ petition on 11.5.2010. Therefore, interest has to be paid by the respondent from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., from 11.5.2010, at the rate of 8% per annum till the amount is paid. The first respondent is directed to pay the entire compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. Though the learned counsel appearing for the electricity board submits that the financial condition of the board is not good and therefore, the board would find it very difficult to pay the compensation amount. 18. Though the learned counsel appearing for the electricity board submits that the financial condition of the board is not good and therefore, the board would find it very difficult to pay the compensation amount. However, the said contention cannot be accepted, as financial position of the respondent cannot be put against the petitioner who lost his wife because of the negligence of the respondent. The writ petition is allowed as stated above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Petition allowed.