Pushpa v. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chengalpattu District, Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpattu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21..04..2009Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAS.A.No.1528 of 20081.Pushpa2.Madan3.Madavan4.Priya5.Vinayagam (Minor)6.Kuppammal... Appellants/ Plaintiffsvs.1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chengalpattu District, Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpattu.2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur district, Thiruvallur... Respondents/ DefendantsThis second appeal is filed against the judgement and decreedated 29.4.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,Thiruvallur, in A.S.No.47 of 2007, partly allowing the judgementand decree dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,Thiruvallur, in O.S.No.69 of 2004.For Appellants : Mr.G.KarthikeyanFor Respondents : Mr.N.Muthusamy for R1 No appearance for R2JUDGMENTThis second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs,animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 29.4.2008 passedby the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, in A.S.No.47of 2007, partly allowing the judgement and decree dated 5.10.2005passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.No.69of 2004. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, whichare absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this secondappeal, would run thus:(a) The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.69 of 2004claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of thehusband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5one Subramani, in the electrocution accident, which took place on14.6.2003, as against which, the first defendant filed the writtenstatement and resisted the suit.(b) During enquiry, the trial Court framed the relevant issues.The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with one Elangoas P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A.3 were marked. One C.Elumalai was examinedas D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.(c) Ultimately the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-,payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs, with interest at therate of 7.5% per annum, as against which, the first defendant filedthe A.S.No.47 of 2007. The first appellate Court modified the trialCourt's judgement and reduced the compensation to Rs.3,25,000/- fromRs.4,00,000/-.(d) Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgement anddecree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.47 of 2007,this second appeal has been focussed by the plaintiffs on variousgrounds.3. After hearing for some time the arguments on both sides,this Court felt that with the consent of both sides, this mattercould be disposed of finally by framing the following substantialquestion of law:"Whether the first appellate Court below correctlyapplied the law in assessing the compensation or whethersuch assessment is on the lower side?"4. A bare poring over and perusal of typed set of papers,including the judgements of both the Courts below, would revealthat one deceased Subramani, at his age of 45, died due toelectrocution. Both the Courts below gave a categorical findingthat the occurrence took place due to the negligence of theElectricity Board in maintaining the live wires. The question nowinvolved is only relating to the quantum arrived at by the trialCourt and as modified by the first appellate Court.5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would advance hisargument to the effect that even though the trial Court quantifiedthe compensation in a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-, nonetheless in view ofthe fact that the prayer was only for Rs.4,00,000/-, it slashed itdown to Rs.4,00,000/- and awarded the just compensation; On the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other, without any rhyme or reason, the first appellate Courtfurther slashed it down to Rs.3,25,000/- by wrongly choosing thelesser multiplier 13 and also choosing the multiplicand asRs.20,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the learned counsel for theplaintiffs prayed for interference of this Court.6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the ElectricityBoard would submit that there is no perversity on the part of thefirst appellate Court in reducing the compensation fromRs.4,00,000/- to Rs.3,25,000/- and as such, no interference by thisCourt is required.7. It is a trite proposition of law that even in respect ofelectrocution cases, mutatis mutandis the formula applied forassessing the compensation in accident cases, has to be applied.Accordingly if viewed, it is clear that the deceased died at theage about 45 and taking a cue from the second Schedule appended tothe Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the appropriate multiplier would be13. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the multiplieradopted by the first appellate Court warrants no interference. 8. The Apex Court in catena of decisions analysed the secondschedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and laid down the law that inall cases the multiplier found exemplified in the second scheduleneed not be taken as an absolute guideline and depending upon thefacts and circumstances, the multiplier may vary.9. However, in this case, I am of the view that themultiplier 13 would be the most appropriate one for the reason thatthe deceased died, leaving behind his wife aged about 39 and hisfour children aged about 21, 19, 17 and 10 respectively, and alsohis mother and unless the multiplier 13 is chosen, the ultimatecompensation arrived at would be very low. 10. The trial Court has chosen the monthly income of thedeceased as Rs.3000/-. However, unjustifiably the first appellateCourt slashed it down to Rs.20,000/- per annum. I could see nosound reason involved in such assessment made by the firstappellate Court.11. Here, it is a singularly singular case wherein thedeceased had the prospect of living at least for more than 20years, but for his untimely death and he could have certainlyimproved his income also. Hence, taking into consideration allthese facts and the cost of living and also the fact that from thiscompensation amount only the dependants have to protect themselves,it is just and necessary to take the income of the deceased asRs.3,200/- per month. Accordingly, if worked out, the followingformula emerges: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Annual incomeRs.3200/- X 12: Rs.38,400/- Deduct 1/3rd towards expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive irrespective of the factwhether he lead the lifeof a Bohemian or that of a Spartan: Rs.12,800/----------------- Rs.25,600/-----------------Loss of dependency (Rs.25,600X13) : Rs.3,32,80012. Both the Courts below committed serious error in awardingRs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection, on a flat ratescale, so to say, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each in favour of thesix dependants. In my opinion it is not fortified by anyprecedents of our Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court. Peculiarly,towards loss of consortium, no compensation at all was awarded.Hence, I would like to interfere with the said assessment.13. Towards loss of consortium the first plaintiff is entitledto a sum of Rs.15,000/-, as at the time of the death of herhusband, she was only 39 years old. The other plaintiffs beingdependants, are entitled to Rs.5000/-each towards loss of love andaffection and accordingly if worked out, towards loss of love andaffection P2 to P6 are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- in total.The sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is reducedto Rs.2000/-, as the deceased was only a coolie and in commensuratewith his status, the plaintiffs were expected to spend not morethan Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. As such, the judgementpassed by the first appellate Court is modified thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Compensation towardsdependency:Rs.3,32,800/-Compensation towards Loss of consortium to the I plaintiff: Rs. 15,000/-Compensation towards Loss of love and affectionto P2 to P6: Rs.25,000/-Towards funeral expenses :Rs. 2,000/-----------------Rs.3,74,800/-----------------and it is rounded off to Rs.3,75,000/-(Three lakhs seventy five thousand only)the interest awarded by the Courts below at 7.5% is confirmedalong with the cost awarded. 14. The second appeal is ordered accordingly with costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmskTo1.The Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur.2.The Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.1 cc to Mr.G. Karthikeyan, Sr. 161271 cc to Mr.N. Muthusamy, SR. 16085S.A.No.1528 of 2008MRB (CO)kk 15/5