ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, seeking for the payment of compensation for the death of her husband, which occurred due to negligence and poor maintenance of the Electrical lines by the respondent- Board. The petitioner is living at Nagapattinam District with her 13 years son viz., Vetrivel and 2 years daughter viz., Kavya. Her husband P.Mohan (hereinafter referred as Deceased) died on 27.06.2012 due to electrocution arising out of negligence on the part of the respondents. The petitioner further submits that on 27.06.2012 at about 9 a.m., one Mr.Mani attached to the fourth respondent came to the petitioner's house and advised the deceased that there was a power shut down and informed that the branch of a coconut tree inside the house of the deceased was entrenching the HT line and behest the deceased to cut and remove the coconut branch, which touched the HT line. Believing the words of the said Mani, the deceased on the impression that there was no power at that time, climbed the coconut tree and cut the branches. At that time the severed branch fell on the HT electrical wire and the same got in contact with the deceased body as a result of which, the deceased was electrocuted and he fell down from the tree which was more than 40 feet from the earth. At that time, the petitioner, the said Mani, neighbours of the petitioner's viz., Sundarambal, Panneerselvam, Krishnamurthy were present at the scene of occurrence. Immediately, the deceased was rushed to the Government Hospital at Thiruvarur and there he was admitted as an inpatient. But, he died at about 2.30 p.m., on the same day. The Police attached to Kariyapattinam Police Station recorded a statement from the petitioner and a case in Crime No.68/2012 was registered under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. (Electric Shock) on 28.06.2012. 2. The petitioner further submits that the incident took place only due to the negligence of the respondents and non maintenance of safety clips to see that there was no joggling of the lines and the death of her husband was due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondents. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- monthly from his avocation. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- monthly from his avocation. The petitioner had great hopes and plans for the future of her children with the earning of her husband. Their family was a poor family and they had great hopes on the deceased. Further, they were deprived of his love and companionship. The incident was solely on account of the negligence of the respondents and as such, the respondents are bound to pay compensation for the unfortunate death of her husband. With the result, the petitioner had sent the representation to the respondents praying for the compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs for her family expenses and for giving good education to her children on 12.08.2013. The petitioner further submits that the fourth respondent has sent a reply that the accident which occurred on 27.06.2012 was due to the deceased's negligence and he wantonly climbed the coconut tree without informing the respondent and cut the branch and fell down from the tree. It was further contended that the respondent Board is in no way connected with the said incident. The same was communicated by him vide his order dated 10.09.2013. The second respondent has given the reply in the same line of the aforesaid fourth respondent's reply but he added further narration that the respondent Board was wrongly implicated in the said occurrence by the Police and the death was due to the High Tension electrical wire contact with the severed branch of coconut tree which consequentially got in contact with the deceased body as a result of which, the deceased was electrocuted and fell down from the tree. The same was communicated by him vide his order dated 26.09.2013. Both the respondents rejected the petitioner's representation. But the respondent-Police on the investigation of the case had sent a report to the Tahsildar, Vedaraniyam on 11.07.2012 confirming the reason for the accident in which it was stated that on 27.06.2012 at about 9 a.m. one Mr.Mani attached to the respondent Electricity Board and the deceased climbed the coconut tree and cut the branch of the tree and the severed branch fell down on a live high tension electrical wire. While so, it contacted with the body of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased was electrocuted and fell down from the tree. While so, it contacted with the body of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased was electrocuted and fell down from the tree. Immediately, he was brought to the Government Hospital at Thiruvarur and he died. The petitioner submits that there is no disputed set of facts in the present case and the liability and negligence of the respondent is well established by the Investigation Report submitted by the Police Department. Hence, the petitioner entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and resisted the above writ petition. The respondents submit that the deceased P.Mohan (Petitioner's husband) climbed on his coconut tree which was nearby the HT line without informing the respondents so as to remove the coconuts in the coconut tree. The respondents further state that on cutting the branch of the coconut tree, coconuts fell down on the deceased, due to which, he lost his balance and fell down on the road from the top of the said coconut tree from a height of 40 feet and sustained injuries and died on the same day on 27.06.2012 due to head injuries. The respondents further submit that the above said HT line had been erected during 1972 about 45 years back and coconut tree was implanted only about 25 years ago. The petitioner and her family are only responsible for this accident. The respondents further submit that the petitioner's family have not obtained any permission from the respondents to remove the coconuts and to cut the branch of the said nearby coconut tree which is nearby the HT line so as to cut off the electricity supply in order to cut the flow of current in the disputed HT line. The respondents further submit that the occurrence of the accident was only due to the negligence of the deceased and the petitioner's family. The respondents further submit that while removing the said coconut branch, the deceased/Mohan lost his balance and fell down from the top of the said coconut tree. The respondents further submit that the occurrence of the accident was only due to the negligence of the deceased and the petitioner's family. The respondents further submit that while removing the said coconut branch, the deceased/Mohan lost his balance and fell down from the top of the said coconut tree. The writ petitioner wrongly stated that the said accident is an electrocution death but the postmortem report considered that the death is not due to the electrocution but due to physically falling down from the 40 feet height from the top of the said coconut tree and he died due to the formation of blood clot in the brain due to the injuries on his head. 4. The respondents further submit that the allegation that the power shutdown had been made between 9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. on the fateful day is denied as false and the deceased P.Mohan had removed the coconut and cut the coconut tree branch at 9.40 a.m. without getting permission from the respondent-Board for removing the coconuts and cutting the branch of the coconut tree which is nearby to HT line. The respondents further submit that the writ petition is not maintainable since the disputed question of fact is involved and therefore, the only remedy to the petitioner is to file a civil suit as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1999 SC 3412 and 2000 (3) SCC 754 and on this short ground, the above petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. In any event the damage claimed by the petitioner is highly arbitrary, excessive and without any legal or material basis and there is no material basis for the alleged exorbitant claim of Rs.15 lakhs and the writ has no legs to stand. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 5. The highly competent counsel Mr.P.Paramasivadoss appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband P.Mohan had expired due to electrocution arising out of negligence on the part of the respondents. She has two minor children aged about 13 and 2 years respectively. Further, on 27.06.2012, at about 9 a.m., one Mani who is attached to the fourth respondent has come to the petitioner's house and requested the petitioner's husband to remove the branch of coconut tree, which was entrenching the high tension line. She has two minor children aged about 13 and 2 years respectively. Further, on 27.06.2012, at about 9 a.m., one Mani who is attached to the fourth respondent has come to the petitioner's house and requested the petitioner's husband to remove the branch of coconut tree, which was entrenching the high tension line. Her husband, Mohan climbed the coconut tree and removed the branch which had fallen on the high tension electrical line and in the process he got into contact with the high tension electrical wire and fell down from the tree. Immediately, the neighbours, including Mr.Mani, rushed him to the hospital, wherein he had expired at 2.30 p.m., on the same day in spite of medical treatment at Thiruvarur Government Hospital. The Kariyapattinam Police Station had registered a criminal case. The highly competent counsel further submits that her husband was the breadwinner of the family and he was earning a maximum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to grant a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation to the young widow and two minor children. 6. The highly competent counsel Mr.P.Gunaraj appearing for the respondents submits that the deceased Mohan had himself climbed on the coconut tree on his own accord. The respondents never requested the petitioner's husband for removing the branch of coconut tree which were allegedly touching the high tension wire. The respondents never engaged the deceased as employee. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The highly competent counsel further submits that the respondents had sent detailed reply to the petitioner stating that the deceased Mohan had climbed his father's coconut tree and removed the branches on 27.06.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. and at that point of time, he had got into contact with the high tension wire unfortunately and as a result, the said Mohan was subjected to electric shock and he had fallen from the tree on the metal road. Therefore, there is no negligence or insufficiency of service on the side of the respondents. 7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of papers, it is seen from the F.I.R. that the branch of the coconut tree in the house of the petitioner's father-in-law's were burnt due to leakage of electricity power. 7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of papers, it is seen from the F.I.R. that the branch of the coconut tree in the house of the petitioner's father-in-law's were burnt due to leakage of electricity power. The same was informed to the respondents. Therefore, one Mani, attached to the fourth respondent had urged her husband to remove the branches of the coconut tree and at the time of cutting the branches, he had touched the high tension wire and had been electrocuted. The same was witnessed by a few persons. Besides, the postmortem report also reveals that the petitioner's husband Mohan had expired due to electrical shock. It is confirmed that the petitioner's husband had expired due to electrical shock. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner by way of demand draft, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the legal-heirs of the deceased Mohan who are a young widow and her two minor children. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.