Madras High Court
N.R.Shanthi vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 March, 2023
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3243 of 2023
1.N.R.Shanthi
2.N.R.Bharatkumar
3.N.R.Kishore Kumar
4.N.V.Natesan (died)
5.N.N.Sakunthala (died) ...Plaintiffs/Appellants
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented through its Chairman,
800-Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented through its Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Madurai-625 007. ...Defendants/Respondents
PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code,
to set aside the portion of the judgment and decree towards the quantum of
compensation awarded in the decree and judgment dated 31.07.2008 made in
O.S.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court
No.1) Madurai and to grant the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs
only) as prayed for by the Appellant/Plaintiffs in the suit.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
For Appellants : Mr.R.Thangasamy
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit had been filed not satisfying with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1)
Madurai in O.S.No.19 of 2006, dated 31.07.2008.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per
their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as
follows:-
(i) The deceased is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the
second and third plaintiffs. The fourth and fifth plaintiffs are the parents of the
deceased. The deceased was working as an Assistant Engineer under the first and
second defendants. On 27.04.2000, when the deceased was working in Mulk
Project 11 KV Breaker, it got fire. The deceased sustained grievous burn injuries.
Immediately, he was rushed to the hospital and he succumbed to injuries. A case
was also registered in Crime No.597 of 2000. The deceased was aged about 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
years. He was drawing a salary of Rs.1,77,660/- per year. Hence, the
compensation of Rs.20 lakhs was claimed.
(ii)The second defendant had filed a written statement admitting that
there was a fire accident in the 11 KV breaker. However, he took a stand that the
deceased was not wearing any safety equipment. Therefore, he sustained burn
injuries. He fairly submitted that the death benefits have been paid to the family.
Besides, the compassionate appointment was also given to the first plaintiff, wife
of the deceased.
4.Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had
framed the following issues:
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation of Rs.20 lakhs? ;
2.Whether the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the
deceased?; and
3.To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?
5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined
and Ex.A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 and D.W.2
were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
6.The trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence adduced on
either side had found that the deceased succumbed to injuries, while tried to off
the breakers switch and there was serious maintenance problem in the said breaker
and fixed the negligence on the part of the respondent. Thereafter, awarded the
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The trial Court while fixing the compensation, had
deducted the salary drawing by the first plaintiff, who was appointed on
compassionate ground. Challenging the same, the present appeal had been filed.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that while fixing
compensation, the trial Court ought not to have deducted the salary drawn by the
wife of the deceased/first plaintiff, who was appointed under the compassionate
ground. Hence, the method adopted by the trial Court is not proper.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the accident
was occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself as he
had not worn any safety measures. The trial Court had rightly adopted multiplier
method and deducted the salary drawn by the first defendant. Hence, he opposes
this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
9.In the light of the above submissions, now the points arise for
consideration in this appeal are as follows:
(i) Whether the trial Court is right in deducting the salary drawn by
the first plaintiff, who was given compassionate appointment?; and
(ii)Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is proper?
10.As far as the negligence aspect is concerned the trial Court had
recorded its finding after appreciating the evidence available on record that while
the deceased made an attempt to switch off the breakers, he was thrown out as
there was leakage of power in the switch and succumbed to injuries. When the
main switch itself was provided for safety, and there was a leakage in the switch
itself, the negligence can be easily fastened on the respondents. Hence, under the
strict liability theory, the respondent cannot escape from the clutches of law. Be
that as it may, the findings recorded against the respondents are also not
challenged by way of cross appeal. Hence, the respondents now cannot say that the
negligence is only on the part of the deceased.
11.As far as the compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the
deceased was aged about 41 years and he was working as as Assistant Engineer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.14,805/-. This has been clearly
established before the trial Court. The trial Court had deducted 1/2 of the salary
towards his personal income, which is not in accordance with law. Further, the
trial Court had deducted the salary drawn by the first plaintiff, who was given a
compassionate appointment and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan
and others [2013 (3) T.A.C.6 (S.C.)], had held as follows:
“The second issue is “whether the salary receivable by the
claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the
Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for
deduction.” “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of
service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer.
In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the
dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate
appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in
harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable
under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate
appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service
but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental
death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and
to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled
for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “Pecuniary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
Advantage” that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any
amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for
determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
12.Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing
Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans Corporation Ltd., vs. Chandirika and another
[2015 ACJ 1000], had held as follows:
“As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
monthly salary of the wife of the deceased which she is receiving from
the compassionate appointment, has no correlation to the
compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on
account of the accident. Further, we are of the opinion that the
tortfeasor is not contributing anything for the compassionate
appointment of the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the tortfeasor is
not entitled for anybenefit in respect of the salary that the wife of the
deceased receives from the compassionate appointment. Hence, there
is no need to deduct the wages presently the wife of the deceased is
receiving from the job, which she has got on compassionate grounds.”
In view of the above said dictum, the deduction of salary drawn by the first
plaintiff made by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and hence, same is
hereby set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
13.Pending this appeal, an application had been filed claiming interest
on the compensation in the appeal stage. The learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the negligently claim of interest had been omitted. Accepting
the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the the application, the claim
of interest is allowed and 6% interest is fixed. Accordingly, C.M.P.(MD)No.3243
of 2023 is allowed.
14.In view of the above, this Court is fixes the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.14,805/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Five
only) as established before the trial Court and if 1/3 is deducted from his salary
towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased would come around
Rs.9,870/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.9,870/- (Rupees Nine
Thousand Eight Seventy only). Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier 15
is adopted and the loss of income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.17,76,600/-
(Rs.9870*12*15) (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Six
Hundred only). Further, this Court grants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh) towards loss of love and affection. In fine, the compensation is fixed at Rs.
18,76,600/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Six Thousand only).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
15. Accordingly the points are answered and the Appeal Suit is allowed
with costs and the suit is decreed for the compensation as stated above.
16.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that already the
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court had been deposited.
Hence, the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount
of Rs.18,76,600/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Six Thousand
only), along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of realization, less the amount already deposited, within a period of twos
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants may
approach the Tribunal for withdrawal of the said amount, by filing necessary
application and if such an application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass orders
thereon.
28.03.2023
NCC : Yes/NO
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
To
1.The Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1) Madurai
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2014
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
