Judgment :- 1. This writ petition at the instance of a widow, seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to grant compensation on account of the electrocution of her husband. The facts :- 2. The petitioner is the widow of Thiru. Selvaraj, who was working as Administrative Officer in L.I.C. of India at Tirunelveli. The petitioner got four children in her lawful wedlock with Thiru. Selvaraj. 3. On 12 February 2012, the husband of the petitioner was riding a motorbike bearing Registration No.T.N.72 K 249, carrying the petitioner as pillion rider. While the deceased was crossing Sivanthipatti Road at Thiyagaraja Nagar, the electric transmission line attached to the electric pole got snapped and fell on him. The husband of the petitioner was thrown out of the motorbike. He was taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital in a very critical condition where he succumbed to the injuries on 20 February 2012. 4. According to the petitioner, the incident was solely on account of the negligence of the officials of Electricity Board. The deceased was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 48,452/-. The family was denied of his company on account of his untimely death. The petitioner therefore wanted the electricity Board to pay her compensation. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in his counter affidavit admitted the incident. According to the Superintending Engineer, at about 3 p.m., on 12 February 2012, there was heavy wind and as a result, the support GI wire of service connection No.003 309 550 had snapped at the end of service pipe by normal wear and tear, and fell down. The Assistant Executive Engineer directed the wireman to take necessary action to rectify the service lines. The employees of the Electricity Department rushed to the spot and they were in the process of switching off the line. The deceased Thiru Selvaraj came in a two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. Even though he was asked to stop the vehicle, he failed to adhere to the instructions and in that process, the GI wire snapped and got twisted in his neck and he sustained injuries. The Superintending Engineer further stated that the GI wire snapped on account of the normal wear and tear and as such, the incident was nothing but an act of God. The Electricity Department denied its liability in the matter. 6. The Superintending Engineer further stated that the GI wire snapped on account of the normal wear and tear and as such, the incident was nothing but an act of God. The Electricity Department denied its liability in the matter. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Analysis :- 7. There is no dispute with regard to the incident. The deceased was riding a motorcycle and the petitioner was travelling with him as a pillion rider. Even according to the fourth respondent, due to heavy wind, the support GI wire of service connection No.003 309 550 had snapped at the end of service pipe by normal wear and tear and it fell down in Sivanthipatti Road, Thiyagaraja Nagar. According to the Electricity Department, the employees were managing the crowd and the motorists were directed to stop the vehicle. 8. The deceased was riding the vehicle through a public road. The service line got snapped at about 3 p.m. on 12 February 2012. The incident was also at 3 p.m. The counter affidavit filed by the Electricity Department does not contain any indication as to the time taken by the employees to arrive at the scene and to switch off the distribution transformer. The electricity Board is now denying the liability by projecting a case of act of God. 9. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Code contains a separate chapter dealing with operational guidelines for distribution system. Regulation 20 of the Distribution code, mandates that the licensee should prepare pre-monsoon inspection and other preventive maintenance schedules for lines and equipment and ensure its compliance at all levels. The sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20, expects the board to conduct periodical testing and maintenance of transformers, switchgear and protective equipments and earthing in the distribution system in line with the manufacturers recommendation for ensuring their smooth operation, serviceability, safety, reliability and efficiency. 10. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the supplier of electricity. The Board was expected to take all precautionary measures so as to avoid any kind of untoward incident. The Board has got a statutory duty to maintain the live wire and other electricity system used for the purpose of transmission of electricity. It is not possible to avoid the liability by pleading that the incident was an act of God. 11. The Board has got a statutory duty to maintain the live wire and other electricity system used for the purpose of transmission of electricity. It is not possible to avoid the liability by pleading that the incident was an act of God. 11. The Board being the licensee was expected to conduct pre-monsoon inspection for the purpose of taking preventive measures. The Law :- 12. The concept of strict liability in the context of snap electrocution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [ 2002 (2) SCC 162 ]. The Supreme Court interpreted the rule of strict liability and directed the Electricity Board to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased, after arriving at a finding that the live wire got snapped and fell on the public road which was partially inundated and the deceased rod over the wire, which twitched and snatched him resulting in his instantaneous electrocution. The Supreme Court indicated the theory of foreseeable risk in the following words: "7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability case on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions." 13. The Supreme Court in Kaushalya Devi vs. Karan Arora, 2007(5) CTC 17 (SC), observed that totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. 14. The next issue relates to the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. 15. There are no guidelines under the Electricity Act Supply Code and related electricity regulations regarding computation of compensation. The alternative is to look into other legislations governing the field of compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act contains detailed provisions including structured formula to arrive at the quantum of compensation. The subject claim petition requires to be decided in the light of such structured formula as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. The deceased was employed as Administrative Officer in L.I.C. of India, and at the relevant point of time, he was working at Tirunelveli. The deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date on which he died. 16. The deceased was employed as Administrative Officer in L.I.C. of India, and at the relevant point of time, he was working at Tirunelveli. The deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date on which he died. The deceased was entitled to get a rise in income in future in view of promotional avenue available to him. The petitioner being the widow of the deceased, lost the company of her husband. The four children of the deceased also lost the company of their father. The Electricity Board cannot escape liability by pleading that it was nothing but an act of God. The factual matrix clearly shows that the Electricity Department miserably failed to maintain the electricity line and that was the sole reason for the incident. 17. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nirmala Devi, 1979(4) SCC 365 , the Supreme Court observed that the determination of quantum must be liberal, not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales. 18. The Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, held that in case the employee is aged more than 50 years, there should be no addition for future prospects. The Supreme Court also held that only , should be deducted from the total income for personal expenses, in case the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6. The Supreme Court said :- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 19. The decision in Sarala Verma was approved by a 3 Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and Another [2013(5) Scale 160]. 20. The deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.48,452/-. The income tax payable by him on this amount would be a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. 19. The decision in Sarala Verma was approved by a 3 Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and Another [2013(5) Scale 160]. 20. The deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.48,452/-. The income tax payable by him on this amount would be a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. The monthly income, therefore, is taken at Rs.44,452/-. The annual income would be a sum of Rs.5,33,424/-. After deducting , towards his personal expenses, the available income to the family would come to Rs.4,00,068/-. The Supreme Court in K.R.Madhusudhanan and others vs. Administrative Officer and another, 2011 ACJ 743 , adopted the multiplier of 11 to award compensation to the legal representative of a person who died at the age of 52 years. In case the multiplier of 11 is taken, the total amount comes to Rs.44,00,748/-. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-as loss of consortium. The four children are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-each towards loss of love and affection. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. The total compensation thus will be a sum of Rs.44,55,748/-, which is rounded off to Rs.44,56,000/-. Direction :- 21. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,56,000/-[Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only] to the petitioner, with interest at 9% from 20 February 2012. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,000/- [Rupees Nine Thousand only] towards cost. 22. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to pay the compensation with interest and cost as indicated above to the petitioner and her four children in equal proportion on or before 31 August 2013. 23. The writ petition is allowed with cost, as indicated above.