AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Velumani, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the petitioner''s husband viz., Mr. Subramani Konar, aged 55 years, due to electrocution.
The petitioner is residing at 7-A, Muniyandi Koil Street, Pajanai Madam, Keerathurai, Madurai, with her family, depending on the income source of her husband. The petitioner''s husband was rearing six cows and supplying milk in their area. Her husband was a Milkman and also derived income from rearing cows and milching the cows in various houses of their area. The petitioner''s husband and her son Ramakrishnan used to milch the cows at the house of Arokia Mary, Selvam, Asaithambi and Gnanam and various houses and derived income from rearing cows and selling milk.
On 06.08.2011, at about 4.30 p.m., her husband and her son went to milch the cows near Guru Pillai Hotel, located at Mahalipatti Road. While her husband was trying to untie the calf, which was tied in a cement slab near the electric post, he suddenly, slipped and fell down. While falling down, he caught-hold the electric post near by him. The boxes in the electric post were in open stage and her husband''s hand touched it and he was electrocuted. Due to the electrocution, the petitioner''s husband was thrown into the nearby drainage. He was taken in an auto and admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital for treatment. The Doctors informed that her husband died due to electrocution. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, B-4, Keerathurai L. and O. Police Station. A case was registered in Crime No. 872 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Doctors of Government Rajaji Hospital issued a postmortem certificate, dated 07.08.2011, stating that her husband died due to electrocution.
The petitioner''s husband was earning Rs. 300/- per day. He died leaving behind the petitioner and a widowed daughter, aged about 42 years, who have no issues. His sudden death caused immense pain and suffering to the family members. Therefore, the respondents are bound to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the death of her husband due to electrocution.
The petitioner''s husband died due to failure on the part of the respondents to take proper safeguard to protect the public from the heavy load of electricity by providing good boxes with closed doors in the electric poles.
A writ petition claiming compensation is maintainable, as Fundamental Right has been violated and the award of compensation by this Court is under public law. The respondents, for their failure to carry out the public duty, are liable to pay compensation.
In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.
The first respondent filed counter affidavit denying their liability to pay compensation. According to the first respondent, all the electric posts are maintained by the respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner''s husband ought to have kept the cows in a Stall and milched the cows. He cannot tie the cows and calf in the street and milched the cows. The petitioner''s husband died due to his own negligence. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Respondents 3 to 6 filed counter affidavit denying the liability to pay the compensation. The respondents 3 to 6 have stated that the first respondent Corporation is maintaining the electricity service connection for street lights and therefore, the first respondent is responsible for maintaining the electricity service connection appropriately. Therefore, the respondents 3 to 6 are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. They have also stated that the negligent act alleged by the petitioner must be proved with evidence. Therefore, the suit alone is proper remedy and not petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Abbas Ahmad Choudhary Vs. State of Assam, (2010) CriLJ 2060 : (2010) 2 SCALE 308 : (2010) 12 SCC 115 : (2011) 2 SCC(Cri) 439 : (2010) AIRSCW 7312 held that the writ petition is not maintainable to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of contract or a tort, to pay an amount of money. The quantum of compensation is to be arrived at on material facts pleaded and proved. That can be done only by letting in evidence in the civil proceedings. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 that the writ petition for compensation is not maintainable, is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 29.04.2014, made in W.A. (MD) Nos. 1020 and 1021 of 2012 [The Chairman, TNEB, Chennai and others vs. Karuppayeeammal], in which, I was a party, has held that the writ petition for compensation is maintainable and a party need not be driven to civil court. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment reads as under:
"9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petition claiming compensation are not maintainable and that the proper remedy is only before the civil court by way of civil suit. But, his contention is untenable as this issue is no longer res integra.
One of us (V. Ramasubramanian, J) had an occasion to consider this issue recently in a decision dated 28.02.2014 in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2009 [D. NARAYANASAMY VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS]. It was held therein:
"When things speak for themselves, this Court has a constitutional social obligation not to drive the parties to the civil court especially in the cases of this nature. This is borne out by several decisions of Supreme Court as well as this Court.""
This Court in the Judgment reported in Mrs. Saroja Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2014) 3 ACC 291 : (2014) 3 CTC 553 : (2014) WritLR WritLR 316 , has referred to various Judgments and held that compensation claimed in writ proceedings are maintainable. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the said Judgment reads as under:
"7. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for claiming compensation is not correct. This court considering the various decisions held that if the facts are not in dispute, and the death is due to negligence on the part of the State authorities, the legal heirs of the deceased can claim compensation in writ proceedings, vide the decision in the case of K. Sambath @ Chidambaranathan Vs. The Superintendent Engineer-I, Puducherry Electricity Board, Uppalam, Puducherry, The Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Vadhanoor, Puducherry and The Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Puducherry, (2013) 2 ACC 780 : (2013) WritLR 176 . Relevant portion of the decision reads as follows:-
"8. It is a well settled principle of law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that if the facts are not in dispute, the legal heirs of the victims of riot, custodial killing or death due to negligence on the part of the State authorities, can claim compensation in writ proceedings. The only impediment in entertaining writ petition is, there may be factual disputes such as the manner of death, whether there was negligence or not, age and income of the deceased, etc. In this case there is no dispute with regard to the manner of death, age of the deceased and income of the deceased.
Payment of compensation can be ordered by the High Court in appropriate case, particularly when there is no factual disputes, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is no longer res integra. In this regard, the following decisions can be usefully referred to.
(i) In The Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others, AIR 2000 SC 988 : (2000) CriLJ 1473 : (2000) 1 JT 426 : (2000) 1 SCALE 279 : (2000) 2 SCC 465 : (2000) 1 SCR 480 : (2000) AIRSCW 649 : (2000) 1 Supreme 265 , a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was awarded as compensation to a Bangladeshi National, who was sexually assaulted by Eastern Railway Employee. Order of the High Court awarding the said compensation was upheld by the Supreme Court.
(ii) In M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, (2001) 2 ACC 540 : (2001) ACJ 1719 : AIR 2001 SC 3660 : (2001) 7 JT 159 : (2001) 5 SCALE 610 : (2001) 8 SCC 151 : (2001) AIRSCW 3430 : (2001) AIRSCW 4075 : (2001) 6 Supreme 655 : (2001) 7 Supreme 341 , Rs. 4.10 lakhs each was awarded for the unfortunate death of 14 young children, who died due to drowning in a river, when they were on picnic organised by the School authorities.
(iii) In (2005) 9 SCC 586 (MCD v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy) the Supreme Court ordered payment of compensation to the families of those, who died in Uphaar Tragedy and directed the MCD to deposit Rs. 3,01,40,000/- (Rupees Three Crores One lakh and Forty thousand) and 50% of the said amount was directed to be distributed to the Claimants.
(iv) In Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and Others, (2011) 8 JT 232 : (2011) 7 SCALE 489 : (2011) 8 SCC 568 , the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court of Delhi to sewerage workers'' family to Rs. 3.29 lakhs, over and above Rs. 1.71 lakhs already paid by the Government.
Insofar as our High Court is concerned, the said issue is dealt with in several cases. Few decisions are as follows:
(a) C. Chinnathambi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2002) ACJ 1243 : AIR 2001 Mad 35 : (2001) WritLR 174 # Rs. 1.50 lakhs with 12% interest was ordered to be paid to each school students, who died while water tank broke and fell on them.
(b) Smt. R. Dhanalakshmi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2004) WritLR 346 -Rs. 9.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid to the family of a prisoner, who was killed while in custody.
(c) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department and The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department Vs. Mrs. R. Selvam, (2004) 3 MLJ 295 : (2004) WritLR 611 # Rs. 5.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid by the State due to the killing of a medical student inside the Government Medical College Hostel.
(d) C. Thekkamalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) CriLJ 1997 : (2006) 1 MLJ 108 : (2006) WritLR 13 # The Division Bench enhanced the compensation from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 5.00 lakhs for the rape victim, who was illegally arrested and raped.
(e) Lakshmana Naidu (deceased) and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 1 ACC 601 : (2007) ACJ 1349 : (2006) 4 CTC 225 : (2006) 3 MLJ 764 : (2006) WritLR 608 # A sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the family of the deceased.
(f) P.N. Kanagaraj Vs. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2010) ACJ 2133 : (2008) 8 MLJ 1085 # Rs. 4.10 lakhs with 9% interest was ordered for the death of a school boy.
(g) V. Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2010) ACJ 1861 # A sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs was directed to be paid for the death of a student in the school due to negligence of the Government School Teacher.
(h) T. Sekaran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu -A sum of Rs. 9,07,000/- was directed to be paid to the family of a person, who was shot dead by the Security Warden of Madurai Central Prison.
(i) 2011(1) CWC 786 (The Registrar Administration, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court v. Secretary to Government, Home Department) # A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was ordered to the family of an advocate, who died due to not providing immediate medical treatment, in the High Court premises.
(j) P. Ravichandran Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2011) WritLR 943 # A sum of Rs. 18.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the victim, who suffered 100% disability while doing drainage work.
(k) Ganesan and Nagammal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2012) 2 CTC 848 # A sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid by the State to the family of a victim, who died due to bomb attack while travelling in a Transport Corporation Bus.
(l) In (2011) 1 MLJ 1409 (V. Ramar v. Director of Medical and Rural Health Services) this Court directed the State to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the family of a woman, who died during delivery due to the negligence of the Government Hospital authorities.
(m) In Thangapandi Vs. Director of Primary Health Services, DMS Teynampet and Others, (2011) 256 MLJ 1329 # A sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was ordered to the family of a woman, who died after delivery, due to not giving proper treatment by Government Hospital Doctors.
(n) In W.P. No. 23003 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 this Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to the family of a deceased student as he was killed while staying in Government Hostel.
(o) In W.P. No. 20081 of 2007 dated 4.6.2012 I had an occasion to award a sum of Rs. 29.26 lakhs to the petitioner therein, who lost both his parents due to fall of a tree on the road side.
Applying the above decisions to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the respondent department is liable to pay compensation to the family of the petitioner for the death of petitioner''s wife Malathy due to electrocution on 17.5.2009.
There is no codified law for arriving at the quantum of compensation in cases of this type. The enactments like Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Workmen Compensation Act, 1948; and Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 may be applied for arriving at the just compensation. In the decision reported in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, AIR 1970 SC 376 : (1969) 3 SCC 64 : (1970) 2 SCR 688 the Supreme Court held that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at precisely. In the decision reported in M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, (2001) 2 ACC 540 : (2001) ACJ 1719 : AIR 2001 SC 3660 : (2001) 7 JT 159 : (2001) 5 SCALE 610 : (2001) 8 SCC 151 : (2001) AIRSCW 3430 : (2001) AIRSCW 4075 : (2001) 6 Supreme 655 : (2001) 7 Supreme 341 the Supreme Court held that multiplier method may be adopted to arrive at the just compensation. The age of the deceased can also be taken for arriving at a correct multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another, (2011) ACJ 737 : (2011) 112 CLT 208 : (2011) 2 JT 242 : (2011) 162 PLR 497 : (2011) 2 RCR(Civil) 228 : (2011) 2 SCALE 473 : (2011) 3 SCC 566 : (2011) 2 SCC(Cri) 48 : (2011) 4 SCR 367 : (2011) 1 TAC 861 : (2012) AIRSCW 2264 : (2011) AIRSCW 1313 .
How the Court should decide the cases of this nature is emphasised by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ibrahim Vs. Raju and Others, AIR 2012 SC 534 : (2011) 6 CTC 904 : (2011) 13 JT 90 : (2012) 167 PLR 102 : (2011) 4 RCR(Civil) 863 : (2011) 2 SCALE 297 : (2012) 1 TAC 22 : (2011) 6 UJ 4145 : (2012) AIRSCW 413 : (2011) 7 Supreme 500 . In para 9 it is held thus,
"9. This Court has time and again emphasised that the officers, who preside over the Tribunals adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure keeping in view the relevant factors. Unfortunately, despite repeated pronouncements of this Court in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of road accidents and/or their families, the Tribunals and even the High Courts do not pay serious attention to the imperative of awarding just compensation to the claimants."
In Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2009) 10 JT 90 : (2009) 10 SCALE 90 : (2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 12 SCR 305 the Supreme Court pointed out the need of giving just compensation to the victim. In paragraphs 26 and 27 it is held thus,
"26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so."
This Court is bound to bear-in-mind the above stated principles for arriving at just compensation.
With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a calculation memo, which reads as follows:
Calculation
Income of the deceased
Rs. 3,000/-
Less: 1/4th Expenses
Rs. 750/-
(per month)
Rs. 2,250/-
Annual Income
(Rs. 2,250/- x 12)
Rs. 27,000/-
Multiplier
(27,000/ -x 13)
Rs. 3,51,000/-
Add: Funeral Expenses
Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of Consortium
Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection
Rs. 10,000/-
Total Compensation
Rs. 3,76,000/-
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the date of death of his wife with 9% interest and interest alone comes to Rs. 40,000/- approximately.
In the light of above cited decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the death of petitioner''s wife Malathy at the age of 47 years, the writ petition is allowed of with a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in lumpsum as compensation to the petitioner''s family, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the said amount, petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the two sons of the petitioner are entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- each. No costs.
For reporting compliance of this order, post on 21.1.2013."
In view of the decision reported in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) ACJ 1428 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 : (2012) 4 SCALE 559 : (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) AIRSCW 2892 : (2012) 3 Supreme 197 , 30% of the income can be added towards future prospects. If 30% is added towards future prospects, the loss of income of the deceased would be Rs. 62,400/- (Rs. 48,000/-+ Rs. 14,400/-= Rs. 62,400/-) per annum."
Compensation for death of a person cannot be quantified by straight-jacket formula. There is no rule or regulation containing guidelines for payment of compensation. Courts have applied in similar cases, the multiplier mentioned in the Judgment reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 .
In some cases, the multiplier mentioned in second schedule of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act has been followed.
In the present case, the quantum of compensation can be arrived at by applying the multiplier, as provided in the second schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act.
The petitioner has stated that her husband is rearing and milching the cows and supplying milk to various persons in the locality. She has stated that her husband earning a sum of Rs. 300/- per day. The first respondent has not disputed this fact. The respondents 3 to 6 did not dispute that the petitioner''s husband was earning Rs. 300/- per day. Their only contention is that the petitioner must prove this fact by letting in evidence and the writ petition is not maintainable for claiming compensation.
It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner''s husband was not rearing any cow and not doing milk vending business. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner can be taken into consideration for arriving at quantum of compensation, as this statement of the petitioner was not disputed by the respondents.
When Rs. 200/- per day is taken as the income of the petitioner''s husband, the monthly income would be arrived at Rs. 6,000/- and the annual income would be arrived at Rs. 72,000/- and 1/4 i.e., Rs. 18,000/- should be deducted for his personal expenses, while he was alive. Therefore, the annual income would be Rs. 54,000/- [Rs. 72,000-Rs. 18,000/-= Rs. 54,000].
The petitioner''s husband was aged about 55 years at the time of his death as per the postmortem report. The multiplier as per second schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act to be applied is ''8''. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has been arrived at Rs. 4,32,000/- [Rs. 54,000 x 8]. In addition to this, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium are granted. The total compensation payable is Rs. 4,92,000/-.
The first respondent denying the liability on the ground that the maintenance of electric posts in the street is the duty of the respondents 3 to 6.
On the other hand, the respondents 3 to 6 have stated that the maintenance of electric posts in the street is the responsibility of the first respondent Corporation. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 relied on the order dated 29.03.2012, made in W.P. (MD) No. 10328 of 2010 [Thanapandiammal Vs. The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, Madurai and others], wherein this Court held that maintenance of electric posts in the street is the responsibility of first respondent Corporation. In the present case, the boxes in the electric post were opened and the respondents 3 to 6 cannot say that only the first respondent is responsible for maintaining the electric posts along with fittings therein. It is the duty of the respondents 3 to 6 for maintenance of electric posts as well as fittings therein along with the first respondent. Therefore, I hold that the respondents 3 to 6 are equally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
In the result, the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,46,0000/- and the respondents 3 to 6 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,46,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents 1 and 3 to 6 failed to pay the amounts within the time limit fixed, the compensation amounts shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of incident, viz., 06.08.2011 till the date of payment in full. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.