JUDGMENT 1. One minor Sangeeth Raj, aged about 8 years, died on 04.05.2012 due to electrocution. He already lost his father. The first petitioner herein is the mother and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the brothers of Sangeeth Raj. 2. On the fateful day, at about 08.00 a.m., when the first petitioner's deceased son viz. Sangeeth Raj was on the way to attend Vedagama Class in CSI School, Periya Street, Paranji Colony, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District, a high tension live wire, which was hanging over the tree, got snapped and fell down on him, resulting in the death of the first petitioner's younger son, on the spot itself. Immediately, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered in Crime No.406 of 2012, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., on the file of Sholinghur Police Station. The body of the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Sholinghur for post-mortem, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholinghur. The post-mortem report also confirmed that the cause of death was shock due to electrocution. 3. The first petitioner made a representation dated 28.06.2012 to the respondents claiming compensation for the death of her younger son. Since there is no response from the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the death of her younger son. 4. The respondents 2 to 4 filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit it is stated that there was heavy rain due to cyclone on 02.05.2012 with strong winds and thunder, resulting in damage to the LT line and therefore, there is no question of negligence on the part of the respondents and the accident occurred due to vis-major and act of God beyond their control. Therefore, the proper remedy for the petitioners is to file a civil suit claiming compensation. 5. The first petitioner filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the counter affidavits. It is stated therein that the cause of death was confirmed as death due to electrocution and the respondents also did not assail the said fact. That is, the death was due to the falling of the live wire on the deceased boy due to snapping of the live wire. 6. Heard the submissions made on either side. 7. It is stated therein that the cause of death was confirmed as death due to electrocution and the respondents also did not assail the said fact. That is, the death was due to the falling of the live wire on the deceased boy due to snapping of the live wire. 6. Heard the submissions made on either side. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accident occurred only on account of the negligence on the part of the respondents and hence the respondents are responsible for the snapping and falling of live wire resulting in the death of the deceased boy and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 submitted that the said accident was nothing but an act of God and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. However, the learned counsel submitted that if a direction is issued to the respondents to pay compensation, they are ready to do so. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have enclosed the copies of the First Information Report and post-mortem report in the typed-set of papers. 10. Admittedly, the facts are not disputed by the respondents and the post-mortem report clearly reveals that the death of the first petitioner's younger son was due to electrocution. The death was due to the falling of live wire on the deceased boy. There is no dispute over the same. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that this Court, in similar circumstances in G.PONNUSAMY VS. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS in W.P.No.23869 of 2011 (decided on 31.10.2012) directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.20,000/-towards cost, with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of death till the payment is made. That case is similar to the present case, wherein a 9 years boy died due to electrocution. In this regard, paras 15, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "15. The factual matrix gives a clear indication that the Electricity Board was at fault and the officials have not taken reasonable care expected from them and as a result, a young boy died at his tender age. In this regard, paras 15, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "15. The factual matrix gives a clear indication that the Electricity Board was at fault and the officials have not taken reasonable care expected from them and as a result, a young boy died at his tender age. The Board is therefore, liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 25. The deceased was aged about 9 years as on the date on which he was electrocuted. Under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, in the case of a non earning person, income of the deceased should be notionally taken as Rs.15,000/-p.a. In case the age of the victim was less than 15 years, the appropriate multiplier is 15. Therefore, in the subject case, the total amount would come to Rs.2,25,000/-(Rs.15,000/- X 15). In case 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, total amount would be a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, by way of non-pecuniary damages. 26. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) to the petitioner as compensation, with interest at 12% from 10 October 2011. 27. The petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards cost. 28. The third respondent is directed to pay the compensation with interest and cost as indicated above to the petitioner, on or before 31 December 2012. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." I am of the view that the said judgment squarely covers this case. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) to the first petitioner as compensation, with interest at 12% from the date of death of the deceased till the payment is made. Further, the second respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the first petitioner towards cost. The second respondent is directed to pay the compensation with interest and cost as indicated above to the first petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.