Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs Parasuraman on 25 June, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Appeal Suit Nos.482 of 2022 and 444 of 2024
A.S.No.482 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Polur.
3. The Junior Engineer (O & M),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Athimur, Polur Taluk. ... Appellants
Versus
1. Parasuraman
2. Rajapriya
3. Sarathkumar ... Respondents
Prayer:- First Appeal filed under Section 96 r/w. Section XLI of Civil
Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed
in O.S.No.48 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Full
Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mrs.J.Hemalatha Ganapathi
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Malar
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )
A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024
A.S.No.444 of 2024
1. Parasuraman
2. Rajapriya
3. Sarathkumar ... Appellants
Versus
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Polur.
3. The Junior Engineer (O & M),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Athimur, Polur Taluk.
4. The Tahsildar,
Polur Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai.
(R-4 is suo motu impleaded, vide Order of
Court dated 12.01.2024 made in CMP.No.410/2024
in A.S.SR.No.117396 of 2021) .... Respondents
Prayer:- First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to
modify the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.48 of
2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional
Charge), Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mrs.M.Malar
For Respondents : Mrs.J.Hemalatha Ganapathi
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )
A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT
The First Appeal in A.S.No.482 of 2022 has been filed by the Defendants/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.48 of 2017 dated 02.08.2019.
2. The First Appeal in A.S.No.444 of 2024 has been filed by the Plaintiffs to modify the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.48 of 2017 dated 02.08.2019.
3. The brief averments in the Plaint are as follows:-
3.1. On 29.10.2014 at around 5 a.m., the wife of the first Plaintiff and mother of the second and third Plaintiffs had carried milk can to the Milk Co-
operative Society through Polur Taluk, Athimoor Erikolliaimedu, via Narayanasamy's son, Settu's land. The electric wire which was running in that place was not maintained properly for several years. The electric wire which was running, got cut off and it fell upon Roja on both her hands, due to which she was electrocuted, thrown out, and died on the spot. Usually, when the electric wire gets cut, the Electricity Department fixes the machine parts in the 3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 electric transformer in order to avoid passing of electricity. However, the electric wire was not properly maintained and was not changed. The Defendant Department had not maintained the electric wire and electric transformer in a proper manner for several years. On the day of incident, there was no thunder or wind (fhw;nwh. ,onah ,y;iy). The accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the Defendants' Department in not maintaining the electric wire properly. Hence, the Defendants are liable to pay the compensation to the victim. The first Plaintiff had given a complaint in respect of the said electric shock accident before the Polur Police Station and the same was registered in Cr.No.497/2014 u/s. 174 of Cr.P.C. The death occurred due to electric shock. The deceased, Roja, was aged 40 and she was hale and healthy. She was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing milk business and agricultural work. If she had been alive, she would have upgraded the Plaintiff's family. Because of the death of Roja, the Plaintiffs' future has become dark. Hence, the Plaintiffs had sent legal notice on 17.11.2014 to the Defendants. However, the Defendants had not sent a reply and had not given any compensation to the Plaintiffs. The above said electrical accident had occurred due to the carelessness and negligence of the Defendants only. Hence, the Plaintiffs claim Rs.11,00,000/- as compensation from the Defendants.
4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024
4. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the third Defendant and adopted by the first and second Defendants are as follows:-
4.1. The Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs is against the truth and is whimsical and unsustainable either in law or on facts. It is not accepted that the death of Roja occurred due to the electric wire belonging to Defendants' Department which was allegedly not maintained properly for several years.
On the contrary, the Defendants contend that every month, the electric wires are properly maintained by the Defendants Department. It is true that when it was raining with thunder and lightning on 28.10.2024, at night, due to the cut off and falling of the electrical wire, the electric accident happened. However, it is not known for what reason, the deceased took the electric wire in her hand, which had been damaged by natural disaster. If the deceased had informed the Electrical Department without touching the electric wire by hand, the accident could have been prevented. The maintenance work in all transformers is done every month and is being properly maintained by the Departmental Officials. In all transformers, there are no fixed automatic tools. It is not acceptable to claim compensation from the Electricity Board for natural disasters. The deceased alone is responsible for her death. There is no necessity for the Defendants to give compensation for the above said death. 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 The alleged cause of action is a myth. The Court fee paid by the Plaintiff is incorrect. The relief sought by the Plaintiffs is also incorrect. Therefore, the Defendants have requested to dismiss the Suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, the following issues were framed for consideration:-
(1) Whether the negligent act of Defendants alone resulted in the death of Roja, wife of 1st Petitioner/Parasuraman on 29.10.2014 at early hours around 5.00 a.m?
(2) Whether the 3rd Defendant properly carrying on monthly maintenance regarding all transformers/Defendants performed their duty properly?
(3) Whether the death of Roja was due to negligence of Defendants in performing their duty as alleged by the Plaintiffs as with their control and anticipation?
(4) Whether the death of Roja was of 'Act of God' attracting the principle of vismajor, which was only due to natural calamity? (5) Whether there is no cause of action?
(6) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim compensation from Defendants as sought for?
(7) Whether the Court Fee paid is not correct? (8) Any other relief Plaintiffs entitled for?
6. During trial, the Plaintiff-1 examined himself as P.W-1 and the neighbour of the Plaintiffs who saw the accident, one Ravi was examined as P.W-2 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. The Defendant-3 6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 was examined as D.W-1. No documents were marked on the side of the Defendants.
7. After full trial, the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai by Judgment in O.S.No.48 of 2017 dated 02.08.2019 granted decree whereby an amount of Rs.12,32,000/- was awarded as compensation.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the Defendants 1 to 3 had preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.482 of 2022 seeking to set aside the decree granting compensation to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs had preferred A.S.No.444 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
9. The learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 and the learned Counsel for the Respondents in A.S.No.444 of 2024 submitted that the Plaintiffs had filed the Suit as a pauper/indigent person claiming that the victim/deceased was an agricultural daily wage earner in the farm sector. Therefore, the calculation of the compensation by the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai fixing Rs.200/- per day as income which was calculated as Rs.6,000/- per month, is too high. Therefore, the Judgment of 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai is to be set aside and this Appeal preferred by the TANGEDCO is to be allowed.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024, the Plaintiffs in the Suit for compensation by way of reply to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 submitted that the deceased was taking milk to the Milk Co-operative Society through Athimoor Erikolliaimedu, via Narayanasamy's son, Settu's land. Due to electrocution, burn injuries were caused to her hands and resulted in her death. On the date of her death, she was aged 40 years. The husband and children of the deceased had filed the Suit in O.S.No.48 of 2017 for compensation. The learned Judge had fixed Rs.200/- per day and granted Rs.6000/- per month, but the learned Judge failed to consider future prospects. Therefore, the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.48 of 2017 had filed the Appeal in A.S.No.444 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation.
11. The learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024 relied on the ruling reported in CDJ 2017 SC 1220 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-
8/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 “58. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary.Sarla Verma(supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.
59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-
employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be in apposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the 9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.”
12. In support of her claim, the learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024 relied on the ruling reported in CDJ 2017 SC 1220 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others that even though the deceased was a daily wage earner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in cases where the deceased had suffered injuries, while calculating the compensation, if the deceased was working as an unskilled or skilled worker, the income may be fixed by the Tribunal. At the same time, for the unorganized sector, the claim of the Insurance Company that they are not entitled to future prospects was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment which was quoted by the learned counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024. Therefore, the Plaintiffs seeks to enhance the amount of compensation.
10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 Point For Determination Whether the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.48 of 2017 by the learned Additional District Judge at Tiruvannamalai is to be set aside as perverse or the Plaintiffs are entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge at Tiruvannamalai in the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.48 of 2017 ?
13. Heard Mrs. J. Hemalatha Ganapathy, learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022/Respondents 1 to 3 in A.S.No.444 of 2024 and Mrs. M. Malar, learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024/Respondents in A.S.No.482 of 2022
14. Perused the evidence of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and the Judgment dated 02.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.48 of 2017 by the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
15. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 is that the Plaintiffs had filed the Suit as an indigent person, claiming that the deceased was a daily wage earner, a farmhand and she owned only a cow and a calf. Therefore, the calculation of Rs.200/- per day as daily wage and monthly wage calculated as Rs.6,000/- is exorbitant and has to be reduced, cannot at all be accepted.
11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024
16. In cases of this nature, the Court can invoke any other provision to calculate compensation, either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act. In fatal accidents where death was caused due to motor accidents, the loss of income of the dependent person is calculated using certain formula.
17. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481 which was an Appeal against grant of compensation by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the victims of fire accident in a cinema theatre in Delhi due to electrical short circuit with transformer near the cinema theatre. The loss of income was calculated by the Delhi High Court based on the calculations formally adopted in the Motor Vehicle Accident cases by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In cases where there is no proof of income, as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the daily wage earners are paid Rs.190/- under the MGNREGS as daily wages to farm labourers. During the drought season, when there was a lack of employment in the farm sector. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued guidelines to the Motor Accident Claims 12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 Tribunal to adopt Rs.200/- per day as wages in cases where there was no proof of income in the unorganised sector either on agriculture or other activities where the deceased person was employed as skilled or unskilled daily wage earner. If that is calculated, and that had been invoked by the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while calculating compensation, nothing is found to be erroneous. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 that the suit was instituted by an indigent claiming that the deceased was a farm labourer and she owned only a cow and a calf will itself be sufficient for the Court to calculate in the above manner. Therefore, Rs.6,000/- per month calculated by the learned District Judge is not exorbitant or high. It is reasonable.
18. As per the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024, the learned Additional District Judge failed to consider future prospects. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had come up with this Appeal in A.S.No.444 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded.
19. The learned Additional District Judge had not awarded any amount under the heading “future prospects” while arriving at compensation under loss of income. Therefore, the Plaintiffs before the learned Additional 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 District Judge had filed Appeal No.444 of 2024 seeking 50% of the income is to be added as “future prospects” while calculating loss of income.
20. The learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024 placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in CDJ 2017 SC 1220 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others regarding the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while computing compensation, the Tribunal has to include “future prospects” so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case of a deceased who had held permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of the deceased, who was on a fixed salary, would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that while taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years and 25% addition where the deceased 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. As per the postmortem report under Ex.A-2 the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), had calculated the age of the deceased Roja as 40 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 16 was adopted. As per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, if the age of the deceased is less than 40 years, 40% of salary is to be included towards future prospects. If the age of the deceased is between 40 and 50 years, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. Here the deceased Roja was aged 40 years at the time of death. Therefore, 40% of the income has to be included towards future prospects.
21. As per the reported ruling of Pranay Sethi's case, the Court shall not discriminate between unskilled, skilled, and persons in regular employment having fair salary in the month's end. Therefore, if the Court grants "future prospects", then the people who work in the unskilled and semiskilled trades are also entitled to enhanced compensation or future prospects. Therefore, in this case, future prospects had to be included in this Appeal. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that if on the date of death, the deceased was less than 40 years, then she is entitled to 50% of the regular income. If the deceased was more than 40 years old, then 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 he/she is entitled to 30%, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had recommended 25% increase for those who are above the age of 60 years.
22. The learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge) the learned Additional District Judge had applied the multiplier 16 for the age of 40 years. As per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 4 SCC 121], the multiplier approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is 15 for the age between 36 to 40, but the learned Judge by inadvertence had adopted the multiplier 16 which is found to be applicable only to the age between 31 to 35. Therefore, the Electricity Board filed Appeal in A.S.No.482 of 2022, seeking to set aside the award of compensation. The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.48 of 2017 had filed A.S.No. 444 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to re-consider and re-appreciate the evidence and the judgment. As on today, while calculating compensation, the Court has to rely only on the principles under Motor Accident cases for calculating loss of income. It cannot be faulted by the TANGEDCO. To apply workman compensation is not applicable to the victim who was a farm hand and a small time farmer. She succumbed to death while proceedings to supply milk to her clients in the early hours of the date on which she met with accident. Even 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 though it is not a motor accident case, it was a death caused due to electrocution, the TANGEDCO the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 is liable for the death of the victim, the wife of the first Plaintiff and the mother of the other Plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge. On re- appreciation of the materials before the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, this Court find that a wrong multiplier of 16 was applied. It ought to have been 15 as per the ruling reported ruling in Sarala Varma's case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued guidelines for application of multiplier.
23. As per the Postmortem report, the deceased was aged about 40 years and the Plaintiffs are husband and sons of the deceased. As per the principles adopted in the Motor Accident Cases, the economic loss due to the death of a person in the family of the deceased is to be calculated. The principles of Motor Vehicles Act are based on the following reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) (1996) 4 SCC 362 in the case of U.P State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others.
(ii) (1994) 2 SCC 176 in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors.
(iii) AIR 2005 SC 2157 in the case of New India Assurance 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 Company vs. Charlie.
(iv) 2005 (6) SCC 236 in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. S.Rajapriya and two others.
(v) AIR (2006) SC 2688 in the case of U.P State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Bala.
(vi) (2009) 6 SCC 121 in the case of Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation.
(vii) (1996) 4 SCC 362 in the case of U.P State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others wherein the multiplier system was followed.
24. In the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2001) 8 SCC 197] it is held that a house wife, who died in an accident when the Respondent in the accident claims case argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that housewives has no income and therefore, awarding compensation is erroneous. The Hon'ble Supreme Court came down heavily on such argument stating that a house wife contributes to the society by maintaining the family, maintaining the accounts of the family, bringing up children as responsible future citizens of this country, cooking, washing clothes and vessels which are not at all calculated in terms of their contribution to the individual family as well as contribution to the society and to the Nation. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 across the county wherein it was stated that in cases where there is no proof of income of the deceased person, to compensate the loss to the family of the deceased, the guidelines of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGREGS) which is the scheme introduced by the Government of India to alleviate the condition of the farm labourers who faced loss of income during drought. Under MGREG Scheme farm labourers is to be paid Rs.190/- per day as wages for the drought relief work for deepening lakes, clearing bushes around the irrigation channels during drought and also to lay Panchayat roads in Panchayat area. Therefore, they were paid Rs.190/- per day. As per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rs.190/- per day is to be rounded off to Rs.200/- and for 30 days it has to be calculated for one year and based on the compensation is to be determined for the person who died in an accident. Here in this case, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Tiruvannamalai had adopted such a procedure to arrive at a loss of income for the family of the deceased. Therefore, 30 x 200 = Rs.6000 will be a monthly income, that she used to earn when she was alive and this is to be calculated for loss of income. Since the present day cost of living is high, Rs.6,000/- per month is a meagre amount to run a family. As a Judge of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I had calculated the wages based on the income of the daily wage earners on the construction sector where the helper is 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 paid Rs.300/- per day and if it is calculated for month it comes to Rs.9,000/-, it was rounded off to Rs.10,000/- in cases involving out of Court settlement by the guidelines issued by High Court. Considering the present day cost of living, the notional income is fixed as Rs.10,000/-. As per the evidence, she died when she was leaving to deliver the milk to the milk society in the early hours of the day on the unfortunate incident. At the time of death, she was 40 years. Therefore, by her earning and income from the milk vending business she is likely to earn not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the notional income can be calculated as Rs.10,000/- per month.
25. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 that the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai, had calculated the compensation based on the motor accident claims cases whereas this is a case involving negligence on the part of the deceased by touching the electric wire by herself cannot at all be accepted. The calculation of compensation by the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai, based on Motor Vehicles Act and Rules is erroneous. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants/TANGEDCO that the compensation calculated based on Motor Vehicles Act and Rules cannot at all be accepted as on the date, there is no 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 guidelines available to arrive at a just compensation for those who died in accident.
26. In the reported decision in 2003 (68) DRJ 128 (DB) in the case of Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Others vs. Union of India and Others, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi Court by following the principles of Motor Vehicles Accident Compensation cases had awarded compensation to each of victims of fire accident who suffered burns, for each of the individuals whose dependants died in the fire accident. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the learned trial Judge had erred in calculating the compensation based on the principles under the Motor Vehicle Act in which accident victims are granted compensation. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants (Defendants before the trial Court)/TANGEDCO cannot at all be accepted as the Uphaar Tragedy victims were compensated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi based on the principles awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act even though it was not a Motor Accident. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2003 (68) DRJ 128 (DB) in the case of Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Others vs. Union of India and Others, was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481.
27. Further, it is to be noted that the High Court of Madras has issued guidelines to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals across the State to adopt Rs.12,000/- as the notional income in cases where there is no proof of income of a deceased person aged below 55 years, while settling compensation in Lok Adalats. In such cases, no addition towards future prospects is to be made. Based on the above guidelines, the Lok Adalats calculate the loss of income on the said notional income to determine the compensation payable for the death of a person when no proof of actual income is available. Considering those factors, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased Roja as Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the reported ruling in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 4 SCC 121], the deduction towards personal expense to be made. Here, the deceased is a house wife having her own income, the personal expense will be meagre. Therefore, Rs.2,000/- only is deducted. Then, the contribution to the family will be Rs.8,000/- (Rs.10,000-Rs.2,000/- = Rs.8,000/-). As per the reported ruling in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in CDJ 2017 SC 1220, 40% of the income of the deceased to be added, if the 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 deceased is not regular job and is skilled or unskilled wage earner, then Rs.8,000 + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.12,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 40/100 = Rs.4,000/-). Accordingly, applying multiplier of 15, the compensation is re-calculated as follows:
Loss of income (Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 15) = Rs.21,60,000/-
st Loss of consortium to 1 Plaintiff Husband = Rs. 40,000/- Loss of love and affection on Plaintiffs 2&3 = Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/-
Transport to Hospital = Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
Total = Rs.23,20,000/-
Therefore, the compensation of Rs.12,32,000/- awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, is enhanced to Rs.23,20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only).
28. In the light of the above discussions, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the Appellants in A.S.No.444 of 2024 and against the Respondents in A.S.No.444 of 2024 and Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022.
In the result, the Appeal Suit No.482 of 2022 is dismissed. The Appeal Suit No.444 of 2024 is allowed. The Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.48 of 2017 by the learned Additional District Judge at Tiruvannamalai is modified enhancing the compensation awarded by 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024 the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, from of Rs.12,32,000/- to Rs.23,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only).
The Appellants in A.S.No.482 of 2022 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount to the credit of the case in O.S.No.48 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, within two months from the date of uploading this judgment in the website of the High Court, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. No costs.
25.06.2025
dh
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
24/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )
A.S.Nos.482/2022 & 444 of 2024
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,
dh
Judgment made in
Appeal Suit Nos. Nos.482 of 2022 and 444 of 2024
25.06.2025
25/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )