ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the petitioner's son namely Bharathpandian, aged about 26 years due to the electrocution as a result of coming into contact with the live wire that was snapped. 2. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that the said Bharathpandian aged about 26 years was their elder son and has scored 455 out of 500 in the 10th standard and 1028 out of 1200 in the 12th standard. After completing his schooling he pursued B.E. Mechanical Engineering at the University College of Engineering. However, owing to financial constraints he discontinued his Engineering studies and completed his Senior Grade Typewriting both in Tamil and English and had applied for employment relating to the same and was trying for public employment. While so, on 11.05.2023, when he was returning after visiting agricultural lands at Mettukulam, Mungapattu Village, Kalur Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, when he was nearing agricultural lands owned by one Vinayakam a high density electric wire that got snapped between two poles was lying on the ground and unfortunately the said Bharathpandian came into contact of the live wire and died. A case under Cr.No.200 of 2023 was also registered. It can be seen that he died only on electrocution. Therefore, the compensation is sought for. 3. The Writ Petition is resisted by filing a counter affidavit. The above facts are admitted. It is also stated that pursuant to the First Information Report, the Post Mortem report states the deceased would have died due to electrocution. However, final opinion is reserved for want of chemical analysis report. In the counter in paragraph No.7 it further states that as per the Board Circular dated 16.10.2019 which is applicable as on date of death a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-is only payable as compensation and the same will be paid. It is their contention that more than Rs.5,00,000/- cannot be claimed by the petitioner. 4. This matter is no longer res integra and I had considered the issue with reference to the negligence in the order dated 17.02.2025 in Lakshmi Vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director (W.P.No.34872 of 2024 ) and with reference to liability it is held that TANGEDCO is strictly liable. The paragraph No.7 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- 7. 4. This matter is no longer res integra and I had considered the issue with reference to the negligence in the order dated 17.02.2025 in Lakshmi Vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director (W.P.No.34872 of 2024 ) and with reference to liability it is held that TANGEDCO is strictly liable. The paragraph No.7 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- 7. The law is clearly established that strict liability applies to the 2020 SCC Online Mad 5203 2012 SCC Online Mad 3931 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis(Uploaded on:06/03/2025 07:52:08 pm) respondent authorities. It is the duty of electricity boards and relevant authorities to ensure the installation of necessary protective devices to prevent mishaps arising from live electrical wires. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, has emphasized that in the event of a live wire snapping and falling onto a public road, the electric current must be automatically disrupted. This highlights the obligation of the responsible authorities to implement adequate safety measures to mitigate risks and prevent such hazardous incidents. Devices such as Residual current device (RCD) and Earth-leakage circuit breaker (ELCB) can be installed to detect imbalance between live and neutral conductors, indicating leakage currents, and disconnect the circuit swiftly to prevent harm. The aforementioned case further establishes that the principle of 'strict liability' shall be imposed upon the authority responsible for foreseeing potential harm and preventing it by taking reasonable precautions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 551 (2014) 15 SCC 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis(Uploaded on:06/03/2025 07:52:08 pm) stated that for electrocution cases, the principle of 'strict liability' will fall on teh Electricity Board/Supply Companies and they are duty-bound to take precautionary measures under the provisions of the Act. 5. With reference to the quantum of compensation it has been considered by the earlier decisions and it has been ruled that the formula similar to that of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be adopted. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- 8. Now, regarding the quantum of compensation, this Court has already held in G.Sendhattikalaipandian's case (Cited supra) that formulas similar to those applied under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be adopted. In this case, although it is pleaded that the petitioner's son was acting as a driver, no specific amount has been asserted. He was also 32 years old. Now, regarding the quantum of compensation, this Court has already held in G.Sendhattikalaipandian's case (Cited supra) that formulas similar to those applied under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be adopted. In this case, although it is pleaded that the petitioner's son was acting as a driver, no specific amount has been asserted. He was also 32 years old. In any event, it is evident that the original quantum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was fixed in 2013, and the respondents themselves have increased this as of 25.11.2024. The accident had occurred just three months prior. Although the circular does not apply, this Court must determine fair compensation. Even when calculating based on the Motor Vehicles Act and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis(uploaded on :06/03/2025 07:52:08 pm) considering minimum wages, the compensation calculates to slightly more than Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and given that the respondents have already fixed the amount at Rs.10,00,000/-, I am of the opinion that Rs.10,00,000/- will constitute a fair compensation in this instant case. 6. Therefore, in this case, the deceased was aged 26 years and died as a bachelor. He was unemployed. He had studied upto 12th standard and discontinued the Engineering degree. Considering all that if the minimum wages is taken and the matter is calculated as per formula that is followed under the Motor Vehicles Act, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner total compensation totals as Rs.18,33,600/-. It can also be seen that after the said accident happened in this case in the month of December 2024 in the very next year, the respondent themselves have increased the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- also. The aforesaid sum is also slightly more than Rs.10,00,000/-. I am of the view that in this case it would be fair the compensation is restricted and awarded as Rs.10,00,000/-. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:- i) The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner in respect of the death of their son Bharathpandian. ii) The said amount shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of this order. No costs.