Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs Nandakumar on 15 June, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AS (MD)No.23 of 2018
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Thanjavur. ... Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
Nandakumar ... Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer : First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of
Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in OS No.88 of
2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur dated
30.04.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Parameswari
for Mr.SMS.Johnny Basha
For Respondent : Mr.G.Karnan
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
30.04.2015 made in O.S No.88 of 2014 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Thanjavur. The suit was instituted by the respondent
herein seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,10,000/- with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
interest from the appellant/TNEB. The case of the plaintiff is that on
06.08.2013, the appellant's brother Sudhakar died when he stepped
on a live wire that had snapped and fallen on the ground. Sudhakar
was aged about 27 years at the time of death. He was a bachelor. The
plaintiff claimed that Sudhakar was working as a construction worker
and was earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. The plaintiff being
his younger brother was depending on him for his sustenance. The
appellant board filed their written statement controverting the suit
claim. The learned Trial Judge framed the necessary issues. The
plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and three other witnesses in
support of his case. He also marked Exs.A1 to A11. The learned Trial
Judge by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the
deceased Sudhakar died on account of electrocution and directed the
appellant Board to pay sum of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest as
compensation to the plaintiff. Questioning the same, this appeal has
been filed.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the court below erred in assessing the daily wages of the deceased
as Rs.300/- per day. The learned counsel would strongly contend
that the cause of death due to electrocution has not been established.
It is also submitted that when there is no proof of income, the court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
below erred in quantifying the compensation payable to the plaintiff.
It was however submitted that the plaintiff is not a Class-I legal heir of
the deceased and that he is not entitled to make a claim for
compensation.
3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the court below
does not call for any interference.
4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the evidence on record. The points that arise for determination are
two fold ; (a) whether the plaintiff had established that the deceased
Sudhakar died on account of electrocution, (b) whether the plaintiff is
entitled to claim compensation and if so, what should be the quantum
of compensation. According to the plaintiff, the occurrence took place
on 06.08.2013. Immediately thereafter, a complaint was lodged before
the local police station. The FIR in Crime No.197 of 2013 registered
on the file of the Papanasam Police Station was marked as Ex.A1. A
careful perusal of the said FIR shows that the plaintiff has come out
with a true case. It is stated in the FIR that since a live wire had
snapped and fallen on the ground, the local EB station was intimated
and after the supply of electricity was disconnected, the body was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
removed and shifted to the ambulance. Ex.A2 is the Postmortem
Certificate. The doctor who issued the postmortem certificate was also
examined as PW.3. It has been clearly stated that the death was due
to electrocution. Therefore, I sustain the finding of the learned trial
Judge that the death of Sudhakar was only due to electrocution. It is
further evident from the record that only on account of the improper
maintenance of the electric lines, the occurrence had taken place.
Therefore, the court below rightly fastened the liability on the TNEB.
5.The next question that arises for consideration is as regards
the quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
has not filed any proof of income. He has made a tall claim that the
deceased Sudhakar was earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. The
court below had assumed that the deceased would have earned about
Rs.300/- per day. I cannot lose sight of the fact that before me the
parents of the deceased are not the claimants. It is not as if his wife
or his children are before me seeking compensation. The deceased was
a bachelor. It is the younger brother of the deceased who is before the
court asserting a claim for compensation.
6.The deceased would have got married in due course if the
accident had not occurred. He would have had a family of his own
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
and he would not have been able to maintain the plaintiff herein. The
plaintiff is not a disabled person and therefore, he could not have
expected his brother to take care of him till the end of his life. The
plaintiff as well as the deceased elder brother were on the same
footing in all respects. Like the deceased, the plaintiff also must be
eking out his livelihood by manual labour. At best, the plaintiff could
have expected his brother to take care of him for another few more
years. Therefore, I am of the view that applying the multiplier method
may not be appropriate. If the parents of the deceased or his wife or
the children of the deceased had sought compensation, the court will
be justified in applying the formula set out in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Not so in this case. However, taking note of the overall facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that granting compensation of Rs.3.50
lakhs to the plaintiff will meet the ends of justice.
7.The impugned judgment and decree of the court below is
modified. The appellant Board is directed to deposit the amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of suit till the date of payment. If any amount had already
been deposited, the same will be adjusted. On such deposit, the
plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the compensation now awarded by
this Court by filing proper application before the trial court less the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
amount already withdrawn by him, if any. No costs. The first
appeal is partly allowed.
15.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
skm
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1.The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
Copy to :
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
AS (MD)No.23 of 2018
15.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
