Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation for the death of the petitioner’s husband Late. Vellaichamy and a bullock due to electrocution. 2. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner would submit that her husband Late. Vellaichamy was the only breadwinner of the family, he was working as a coolie and cultivating in a leased land as the petitioner and her family members do not own any agricultural land. While the petitioner’s husband was carrying agricultural work in the leased land, the high tension electric wire passing east to west direction above the agricultural land, had snapped and fallen on the petitioner’s husband and two bullocks. Due to which, the petitioner’s husband was electrocuted, died in front of his son Saravanan and out of two bullocks one bullock died and another bullock was survived. In this regard a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., in Crime No. 48 of 2011, based on the complaint given by the petitioner’s son Saravanan. The postmortem report has confirmed that the petitioner’s husband died due to electrocution. The veterinary Doctor certified that the bullock died due to electrocution and further certified that the value of the deceased bullock would have been Rs.15,000/- prior to it’s death. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after extensively referring to the factual situation, submitted that the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to negligence on the part of the respondent Board in not properly maintaining the electric supply lines and it had snapped and fallen on the petitioner’s husband and he died in front of his own son. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court in support of his contention that in the case of negligence by the respondent Board, this Court by exercising it’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has awarded compensation together with interest to the claimants. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court in support of his contention that in the case of negligence by the respondent Board, this Court by exercising it’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has awarded compensation together with interest to the claimants. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Alamelu vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2012 (114) ATC 707; E. Pareetha Beevi and others vs. The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), Chennai and Others, S. Karthirkaman Chettiar vs. The Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Natham, Dindigul District and another, in W.P. (MD).NO. 12138 of 2013, dated 21.04.2014. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, by relying upon the counter affidavit, submitted that it is not a HT Line but an LT Line, which had snapped because the petitioner’s husband had tried to run the faulty motor repeatedly and when the load is heavy, at the point of connection of the service wire and the board wire, a spark will appear, which will lead to snapping of wire. Therefore, it is stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner’s husband and since it is a civil liability arising out of tortuous act, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. Further, it is stated that in terms of the scheme formulated by the Government, the petitioner has been paid Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The issue as to whether compensation for the death of a person, who died due to negligence of Government Authorities by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra. The long line of decisions on this aspect have been taken note by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai and others Vs. Karuppayeeammal and another, in W.A.(MD).Nos. 1020 and 1021 of 2012 while awarding compensation and it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portion of the said Judgment: “11. The above conclusion was arrived at, based on the following judgments mentioned in Paragraph Nos. Karuppayeeammal and another, in W.A.(MD).Nos. 1020 and 1021 of 2012 while awarding compensation and it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portion of the said Judgment: “11. The above conclusion was arrived at, based on the following judgments mentioned in Paragraph Nos. 28 to 32 in D. Narayanaswamy vs. The District Collector and Others, which is as follows: “28. In M.S. Grewal vs. Deep Chand Sood ( 2001 (8) SCC 151 ), the Supreme Court was concerned with the case of 14 young children, who were all students of 4th, 5th and 6th standards of a public school, who were drowned in river Beas. In a writ petition filed by the parents of the unfortunate children, the High Court awarded compensation. The management went on appeal to the Supreme Court. Among other questions, a question of maintainability of the writ petition was raised before the Supreme Court. But the same was rejected by the Supreme Court by pointing out that the law Courts exist for the society and that the Courts have an obligation to meet the social aspiration of the citizens. 29. In Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University of Calcutta (2002 (7) SCC 478), the Supreme Court again reiterated that the Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of citizens and to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. The Court also pointed out that while enforcing fundamental rights and granting compensation, the Courts, acting under Article 226, do so under the public law by penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong. 30. In Singaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2009 (1) MLJ 416), the parents of 4 minor children, who were crushed to death, when the compound wall of the school collapsed, came up before this Court under Article 226 claiming compensation. A defence was taken that on the fatal day, a few students climbed on to the grill gate and started swinging it back and forth. Unable to bear their weight, the gate fell down and crushed them. Therefore, a stand was taken that the incident was an act of God and that there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the management. After citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation in Delhi Vs. Unable to bear their weight, the gate fell down and crushed them. Therefore, a stand was taken that the incident was an act of God and that there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the management. After citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation in Delhi Vs. K. Subhagwanti ( AIR 1966 SC 1750 ), highlighting the liability of the owners to ensure the safety of the structures owned by them, K. Chandru, J. held that when children of tender age are sent to a State supported school, it is the responsibility of the school and the State to take care of the safety of the children. The learned Judge also observed that no negligence can be attributed to the children of tender age. To come to the said conclusion, the learned Judge relied upon two passengers from the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal, where the Supreme Court pointed out that the safety of children are of prime concern for the school authorities and that till such time the children to school, safe and secure after picnic, the course of employment continues and resultantly, the liability of the school. 31. In T.M. Kamalanathan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu ( 2009 (1) MLJ 634 ), a claim for compensation was made by the father of a minor boy, for the death of his son due to electrocution. After citing the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in P.P.M. Thangaiah Nadar Firm Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu ( 2007 (2) MLJ 685 ), K.K. Sasidharan, J., allowed the writ petition and granted compensation. 32. In Ganesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2012 (2) CTC 848 ), a claim for compensation was made by the parents of a minor boy, who was killed in a bomb blast. The writ petition and granted compensation.” Therefore, the contention of the appellants that only civil Court is the proper forum is untenable and unsustainable and hence, the same is rejected.” 8. The writ petition and granted compensation.” Therefore, the contention of the appellants that only civil Court is the proper forum is untenable and unsustainable and hence, the same is rejected.” 8. Bearing the above legal position in mind, if the facts are examined, it is seen that the electric wire had snapped and fallen on the petitioner’s husband and one bullock, as a result of which, the petitioner’s husband died and the most cruel part is that he died in front of his own son and the petitioner would state that it was a horrifying experience for the petitioner’s son to see his father screaming to death before his very eyes. 9. In the counter affidavit a vague averment has been made stating that the wire had snapped on account of the petitioner’s husband repeatedly trying to run a faulty motor. However, this has not been established by producing any record before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the respondent Board stating that the snapping of electric supply line was due to negligence on the part of the petitioner’s husband. In such circumstances, this Court by following the decisions referred supra is inclined to exercise it’s discretion for payment of compensation for the loss of life of the petitioner’s husband as well as the loss of bullock. Though there are no specific parameters, by which the compensation could be calculated, it is an accepted practice to follow the procedure adopted while assessing the compensation in cases of motor accidents. 10. The petitioner would state that her husband is the sole breadwinner of the family and he left the petitioner and two children and the notional income of the petitioner’s family would be Rs.6,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the contribution to the family would be Rs.4,500/-, adding 15% to the future prospectus, the petitioner states that the per month income should be calculated at Rs.5,175/- and for a period of one year the yearly income would be Rs.62,100/- by applying multiplier 11 as the petitioner’s husband was aged 53 years at the time of death, the loss of income should be computed at Rs.6,83,100/-. The petitioner claims loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, loss of affection at Rs.50,000/-, loss of bullock at Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. The petitioner claims loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, loss of affection at Rs.50,000/-, loss of bullock at Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. In all, the petitioner would claim a sum of Rs.8,33,100/- towards compensation for the death of her husband and loss of bullock. 11. This Court is of the view that the notional income of the petitioner per month calculated at Rs.6,000/- appears to be on higher side, more so, when it is an admitted case that the petitioner’s husband did not own any agricultural land and he is said to have cultivated the leased land. Even in this regard, no document has been placed before this Court to show that he was either a cultivating tenant or he remitted any tax etc. Therefore, the income cannot be accepted at Rs.6,000/- per month and this Court is of the view that the income could be fixed at Rs.4,500/-per month even if he had worked as a labourer and after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the income could be arrived at Rs.3,000/- per month and adding 15% future prospectus, the income would be about Rs.3,450/- per month, which could be rounded off to Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- per annum, applying the multiplier 11 it would be a sum of Rs.4,62,000/-. Considering the other heads, under which compensation has been claimed including the compensation to the loss of bullock, the petitioner could be paid compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, which would be just and fair compensation for the demise of her husband as well as for the loss of bullock. This shall be full and final settlement of all the claims as against the respondent Board. 12. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed and the third respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner for loss of her husband who died due to electrocution as well as the loss of bullock, which also died due to electrocution and this amount shall be full and final of all claims made by the petitioner as against the respondent Board. The payment shall be effected to the petitioner by means of demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.