Judgment 1. One minor Sugugmar, aged about 10 years, died on 25.12.2008 due to electrocution. The petitioner herein is the father of minor Sugumar. 2. On 25.12.2008, during Christmas Vacation, when the petitioner's deceased minor son viz., Sugumar went out to play with the neighbours had fallen on the ground in a land belonging to one Siva Sankara Mudaliar, due to electrocution through the snapped live wire. Immediately, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered in Crime No.984 of 2008, under Section 174 Cr. P.C., on the file of T-14, Mangadu Police Station. The Post-Mortem Report also confirmed that the cause of death was due to electrocution. 3. The petitioner made a representation dated 19.01.2009 to the first respondent claiming compensation for the death of his minor son. Since there is no response from the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation on account of the electrocution of his minor Son Sugumar. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there was heavy rain on 25.12.2008 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 respondent and the accident occurred due to vis-major and act of God beyond their control. Therefore, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a Civil Suit claiming compensation. 5. Heard the submissions made on either side. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accident occurred only on account of the carelessness, negligence and lack of maintenance 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, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the said accident was nothing but an act of God and therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record. The petitioner has enclosed the copies of the First Information Report and Post-Mortem Report in the typed-set of papers. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record. The petitioner has enclosed the copies of the First Information Report and Post-Mortem Report in the typed-set of papers. 9. Admittedly, the facts are not disputed by the respondents and the Post-Mortem Report clearly reveals that the death of the petitioner's minor son was due to electrocution when he came into contact with the snapped live wire. There is no dispute over the same. According to the third respondent, snapping of the live wire was due to heavy rain on the fateful day. In my view, the third respondent could not simply state that the said accident was nothing but an act of God and therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the third respondent is liable to pay compensation. 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that this Court, in similar circumstances in G. Ponnusamy v. 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. 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. 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 10th 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 31st December 2012. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." I am of the view that the said judgment squarely covers this case. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs only) to the petitioner as compensation, with interest at 12% from the date of death of the deceased till the payment is made. Further, the third respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the petitioner towards cost. The third respondent is directed to pay the compensation with interest and cost as indicated above to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.