JUDGMENT : G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, questioning the order dated 16 August, 2012 allowing W.P(MD).No.6634 of 2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.5,77,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the respondent herein. 2. The respondent herein was married to one Namakodi. Two children were born to them. Namakodi was engaged in the business of putting up thatched shed roofs. While engaged in such working on 08 February, 2017, he came in contact with a low hanging live electricity wire and consequently died on the spot. Alleging that negligence in the maintenance of transmission wires led to the death of her husband due to electricity, the respondent herein filed writ petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The learned Judge by a very elaborate order dated 16 August, 2012 allowed the writ petition awarding a compensation of Rs.5,77,000/-. The learned Judge rejected the plea of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that the writ petition was not maintainable. A catena of decisions have been referred to sustain the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Judge also found that there was negligence on the part of the Electricity Board. In this regard, the decision of the Madras High Court reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 607 Ponnu Sankan @ Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu was relied upon. Another unreported decision of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 29 June, 2011 made in W.P(MD).No.9555 and 9557 of 2007 was also referred to. After referring to Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, a finding was given with regard to the negligence on the part of the Board. The deceased was engaged in putting up of a thatched shed roof. In that process, if he could come in contact with a transmission wire, it is obvious that it must be a low hanging one. The maxim res ipsa loquitur can certainly be applied in this case. Obviously, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had not provided for appropriate safety and protective devices. After finding that the Board officials were negligence in maintaining transmission lines, the learned Judge arrived at a quantum of compensation by taking recourse to the structured formula under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. It is true that the writ petitioner herself sought only Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. After finding that the Board officials were negligence in maintaining transmission lines, the learned Judge arrived at a quantum of compensation by taking recourse to the structured formula under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. It is true that the writ petitioner herself sought only Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. But, when this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to something more than what was originally claimed, the Court need not be constrained by the lower amount claimed by the applicant. 5. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Judge was right in awarding a sum of Rs.5,77,000/- with interest and we find no merits in this appeal and the writ appeal stands dismissed. We however note that the entire amount has been directed to paid to the writ petitioner from the date of order passed in the writ petition viz., 16.08.2012. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been mentioned that two children were born to the writ petitioner through her husband Namakodi. Therefore, there must be a due apportionment among them and out of the sum of Rs.5,77,000/-, the writ petitioner/wife of the deceased will be entitled to 60% viz., 3,46,200/- (Rupees three lakhs and forty six thousand and two hundred only) with proportionate interest and the children will be entitled to 20% each viz., Rs.1,15,400/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand and four hundred only) each with proportionate interest. 6. This writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.