Judgment :- A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Abdul Hadi, J., dated 29-6-1994 made in W.P. No. 11029 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition for mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the appellants (writ petitioners) for the death of one G. Subramani 2. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus "(1) The fact that the occurrence took place long back, three years ago and 2, that the fact that the 1st written complaint was made to the 3rd respondent only on 15-10-1992 and 3, that the fact that the second written complaint was made to the 2nd respondent only on 7-4-1994, I see no reason to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could have very well moved the Civil Court long back and claimed compensation. The petitioners, having not done so, after such a long time, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the ground of laches also the writ petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed." * 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the court can under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, grant the award of compensation as a remedial relief, in writ proceedings and that the dismissal of the writ petition without even issuing notice to the respondents to find their stand is incorrect. It is also contended that the learned single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of laches, and applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, the learned Judge should have held that the writ petition is maintainable. Alongwith the appeal, a petition in C.M.P. No. 11915 of 1997 was filed to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 50, 000/- pending disposal of the appeal. On 19-6-1996, after hearing both sides, we passed the following order: "(3) In support of the claim in the writ petition several documents are produced to show that on 30-6-1991 the said G. Subramani died due to electrocution. 1, 50, 000/- pending disposal of the appeal. On 19-6-1996, after hearing both sides, we passed the following order: "(3) In support of the claim in the writ petition several documents are produced to show that on 30-6-1991 the said G. Subramani died due to electrocution. We do not consider it necessary to go into all those documents, as this is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that as considerable time has lapsed and as the writ petition is filed in this court in 1994, instead of driving the petitioners to Civil Court for claiming damages, it would be in the interests of justice to appoint an arbitrator to determine the compensation payable. Both sides have also agree that a retired District Judge may be appointed as arbitrator to determine the compensations, pass appropriate award and submit the same to this court, on ascertaining from the retired District Judges, it is found that Shri K. R. Gururajan, retired District Judge, is willing to function as arbitrator (4) We accordingly, appoint Shri K. R. Gururajan, retired District Judge, as arbitrator as agreed to by both sides, to decide the claim for compensation made by the petitioner in the writ petition who are appellants in this appeal. The order appointing Shri K. R. Gururajan as arbitrator in this matter shall be issued by the Registry within a week. The arbitrator shall submit his award to this Court within four (4) months. The remuneration of the arbitrator is left open to be determined on the submission of the award. But initially he would require money for meeting the incidental expenses. Therefore, we direct the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, to deposit a sum of Rs. 5, 000 (Rupees Five Thousand) in this court within two (2) weeks from today. From that amount, the Registrar shall disburse the amount to the arbitrator as and when he requires for incidental expenses. It is open to the arbitrator to seek such directions as may be necessary from this court from time to time. The place of the proceedings will have to be decided by the arbitrator on hearing both sides." * 4. Pending determination by the arbitrator keeping open the claim to be decided in accordance with law, we awarded an amount of Rs. The place of the proceedings will have to be decided by the arbitrator on hearing both sides." * 4. Pending determination by the arbitrator keeping open the claim to be decided in accordance with law, we awarded an amount of Rs. 50, 000/- by way of compensation for the death of Subramani and we directed the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras to pay to the wife of the deceased sum of Rs. 50, 000/-. The concluding portion of our order reads thus "Taking into consideration all the records and the fact that the petitioner requires money for their sustenance and also to pursue the proceedings, and the circumstances under which the said G. Subramani died, we direct the commissioner, Corporation of Madras to pay to the first petitioner, who is the mother of petitioner 2 to 5, a sum of Rs. 50, 000 (Rupees fifty thousand) within a period of two (2) weeks from today. We make it clear that by awarding this amount we should not be taken to have determined the liability of the corporation. It is the arbitrator who has to decide the entire matter without reference to the observations made in this judgment, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence to be adduced by them. In the event the award of the arbitrator is accepted by this court and if the corporation is found liable, the amount that is now ordered to be paid will be deducted from the amount payable. The writ appeal and C.M.P. No. 11915/94 are accordingly ordered to be called on 4th November, 1996 or even earlier if the award is filed by the arbitrator." * 5. The arbitrator held 11 sittings. The claim is for compensation for the death of G. Subramani by electroduction. Claimant No. 1 (Appellant No. 1) is the wife and the claimants Nos. 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased Subramani who was aged 35 and was employed as a sanitary worker in the Corporation of Madras on a monthly salary of Rs 1, 350 and according to the claimants the deceased along with claimant No. 1 and his children and one Jayaraman and the wife and mother-in-law of Jayaraman waited in the bus-stand near Dena Bank at the Junction of Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai and Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai and Dr. Natesan Road at Mylapore, Madras at about 11 p.m. on 30-6-1991 for boarding a bus to go to Central Railway Station, Madras to board a train to go to Andhra Pradesh for worshipping in a temple there. It was raining and no bus was available and so Subramani went ahead for procuring an autorickshaw. When he was passing near Dena Bank in the payment, he slipped into a small pit covered with water and he caught hold of a street light electric pole nearby in the payment to avert a fall. There was leakage of electricity in that electric pole due to it's improper maintenance and he was electrocuted instantly and fell down dead on that spot. The wife of the deceased made a complaint at 12 midnight that night in Mylapore Police Station, under Ex. P1. The dead body of Subramani was taken to the Government Royapettah Hospital and the postmortem examination of the dead body revealed that the death was due to electrocution. According to the claimants, he was the only earning member of the family and there was negligence on the part of the authorities in maintaining the street electric light pole properly, and to the notice issued to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, they sent a reply stating that it is only the Corporation of Madras which is maintaining the street electric light in the city of Madras and not the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thereupon, the claimants issued notice to the Corporation of Madras which sent no reply thereto. The appellants thereupon filed W.P. No. 11029/94 before this court claiming a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as already stated, learned single Judge of this court by order dated 28-6-1994 dismissed the writ petition holding that the claimants could have moved the Civil Court long back and claimed compensation. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, the claimants have filed this Writ Appeal. Counter-affidavits were filed by both the respondents 2 and 3. On 19-6-1996, this Bench passed an interim order appointing the arbitrator to determine the compensation payable to the claimants instead of driving them to go to Civil Court for claiming the damages, and an interim compensation of a sum of Rs. Counter-affidavits were filed by both the respondents 2 and 3. On 19-6-1996, this Bench passed an interim order appointing the arbitrator to determine the compensation payable to the claimants instead of driving them to go to Civil Court for claiming the damages, and an interim compensation of a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- was directed to be paid with a further direction that it should be deducted from the amount of compensation which may ultimately be determined as payable to the claimants 6. The arbitrator Mr. K. R. Gururajan, retired, District, Judge issued notice to all the parties. The Corporation of Madras filed a counter affidavit before the arbitrator stating that there was no leakage of electricity in the pole in question and that the corporation of Madras had maintained the electric street lighting poles properly according to the electrical standards and that the Executive Officials of the Corporation of Madras used to inspect the street lights during night times and more so during rainy seasons and have the defects, if any, rectified then and there, there on receipt of the message from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 1-7-1991, the inspecting officials of the Corporation of Madras rushed to the spot and Found that there was no electric leakage in the lamp post pointed out by the claimants 7. A verified petition was filed before the arbitrator on the side of the third respondent stating that the 3rd respondent Electricity Board has taken a specific stand before this court in the Writ Appeal that the street lights are maintained by the Corporation of Madras and that any claim for compensation has to be made only against the Corporation of Madras and that the Electricity Board is not liable for the claim. A copy of the counter-affidavit filed in the writ Appeal was also filed before the arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, Dhanaveni, wife of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1 and three witnesses were examined on the side of the Corporation of Madras. No evidence, oral or documentary, has been adduced on the side of the 3rd respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Exs. P1 to P17 were marked on the side of the claimants and Exs. D 1 to D 9 were marked on the side of the 2nd respondent Corporation of Madras 8. No evidence, oral or documentary, has been adduced on the side of the 3rd respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Exs. P1 to P17 were marked on the side of the claimants and Exs. D 1 to D 9 were marked on the side of the 2nd respondent Corporation of Madras 8. Learned Arbitrator, on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him both oral and documentary and of the arguments of the respective counsel, held that there was leakage of electricity in the street electric light pole in question on 30-6-1991, the night of occurrence and that it has been amply proved that the deceased Subramani died due to electrocution from this street electric light pole when he caught hold of that pole to avert a fall when he slipped into a road side pit filled with water on the night of 30-6-1991 and that there has been negligence on the part of the corporation of Madras in maintaining the street electric light pole in question on the night in question and especially during the rainy time and that this negligence had resulted in the death of Subramani by electrocution. The learned arbitrator held that the 2nd respondent the Corporation of Madras is liable to compensate the claimants or the death of Subramani and the respondents No. 1 a and 3 are not liable for the claim 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the arbitrator on a consideration of the materials and the particulars placed before him with regard to the total emoluments and considering the age of the deceased, fixed the compensation at Rs. 2, 16, 000/- by adopting the multiplier of 12. The arbitrator deducted a sum of Rs. 37, 884/- and Rs. 22, 500/- being family pension and dearness allowance. After deducting these two amounts from Rupees 2, 16, 000 the balance comes to Rupees 1, 55, 616 which was rounded off to Rs. 1, 56, 000/-. To this the arbitrator had added a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- towards damages for loss of consortium and loss of estate making a total of Rs. 1, 71, 000/- and directed the Corporation of Madras together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of writ petition till realisation with such costs as may be ordered by this court. To this the arbitrator had added a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- towards damages for loss of consortium and loss of estate making a total of Rs. 1, 71, 000/- and directed the Corporation of Madras together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of writ petition till realisation with such costs as may be ordered by this court. The arbitrator has also further directed that the interim compensation paid already will be deducted from the amount of compensation. The arbitrator has signed and passed the award at Madras on 28-10-1996 and filed the same in this court, after serving the copies on the respondents 10. The arbitrator has also filed a memo dated 13-2-1997 stating that out of the amount of Rs. 5, 000/- deposited in this court, by the Commissioner of Corporation of Madras for meeting his incidental expenses, he withdrew Rs. 4, 000/- from this court and after spending Rs. 2, 921.50 towards the incidental expenses of this arbitration, he deposited the balance of Rs. 10, 78-50 in this court on 31-10-1996. He has also prayed this court to fix his remuneration as it deems fit. The appellants filed an objection to the award of the arbitrator and according to them, the deduction of Rs. 37, 884/- being the family pension for 7 years at the rate of Rs. 451/- for the period from 1-9-1991 to 30-6-1998 and Rs. 22, 500/- being the family pension payable to the appellants for 5 years at the rate of 375 totaling in all Rs. 60, 384/- is wrong, and that the learned arbitrator has erred in adopting the multiplier of 12 in calculating. According to the appellants, the arbitrator has erred in fixing the monthly salary of Rs. 2, 175/-. Whereas the Corporation of Madras did not filed any objection to the award passed by the arbitrator, nor filed any application to set aside the award. The appellants however filed a petitioner in CMP No. 2179/97 to make the award passed on 2-11-1996 by the arbitrator in this Writ Appeal as an order/decree of the court 11. The only question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the award of the arbitrator has to be made as an order/decree of the court or to be set aside 12. The award passed by the arbitrator in this writ appeal, in our opinion, is a well reasoned award. The only question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the award of the arbitrator has to be made as an order/decree of the court or to be set aside 12. The award passed by the arbitrator in this writ appeal, in our opinion, is a well reasoned award. The arbitrator has examined the wife of the deceased as P.W. 1 and R.Ws. 1 to 3 on the side of the 2nd respondent Corporation of Madras. We have also gone through the evidence and the documents marked on either side. Ex. P1 is the FIR dated 30-6-1991 registered in the Mylapore Police Station that the deceased slipped into a pit filed with water and when he caught hold of a street electrical light pole near by to aver a fall, and that he sustained electric shock due to leakage due to rain and that it resulted in his dealth. The inquest report Ex. P2 and Ex. P4 post mortem certificate regarding the autopsy held on the dead body of Subramani and the opinion recorded in Ex. P2 and the post mortem findings are not inconsistent with the history of death due to electrocution. To the notice issued under Ex. P. 13 on 7-4-1994 to the Corporation of Madras, they did not sent any reply to the claimant. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of occurrence and that he was being paid a salary of Rs. 3, 400/- per month by the Corporation of Madras. It is the evidence of the wife of the deceased, that the deceased used to give his entire earnings for the household expenses. The corporation of Madras has examined three witnesses on their side, to show that there was no leakage of electricity either in the street light pole or in the electric cable in the scene of occurrence. R.W. 1 was the electrician in the Mylapore area working under the 2nd respondent Corporation. His evidence is that on testing the street electric light post, he found no leakage of electricity from that light post and he reported the result of his test to the Lighting Inspector. R.W. 1 was the electrician in the Mylapore area working under the 2nd respondent Corporation. His evidence is that on testing the street electric light post, he found no leakage of electricity from that light post and he reported the result of his test to the Lighting Inspector. It is also his evidence that there is no junction box in that light post in which the cable reaches the top of that light post from under the ground R.W. 2 who was the then electrical Assistant Supervisor under the 2nd respondent submitted that no information was received by him that there was cable fault in Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore on 30-6-1991 or 1-7-1991 and that consequently no cable fault attended to in that road on these two dates. R.W. 3 was working as the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical) under the 2nd respondent in Mylapore Zone at the relevant period and his evidence is that one Their. Kannan who was working as Lighting Inspector in Mylapore Sub-station during June-July, 1991 retired from service in about the end of 1991. He further admitted that the said Kannan told him on the morning on 1-1-1991 that a telephonic message had been received by him from the police that there was an electric shock in the street light pole near Dena Bank and that he had sent men to look into the matter. He admitted that water would stagnate for about one foot at the foot of the street electric light pole in the scene of occurrence in the event of heavy rain and that there was heavy rain on the evening of 30-6-1991. We have analysed the evidence of all these witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 1 about the occurrence is natural and acceptable. Her evidence is clear, cogent and convincing. It cannot be denied that the deceased caught hold of the street electric light pole and immediately sustained electric shock from the pole which resulted in his instantaneous death. The evidence both oral and documentary adduced on the side of the claimants, particularly Exs. P1 and P4 prove that when he caught hold of the street light pole in question to support himself and to avert a fall when he accidentally slipped into the road-said pit covered with water on that night. The evidence both oral and documentary adduced on the side of the claimants, particularly Exs. P1 and P4 prove that when he caught hold of the street light pole in question to support himself and to avert a fall when he accidentally slipped into the road-said pit covered with water on that night. As rightly pointed out by the learned arbitrator, the evidence on the side of the second respondent is highly artificial and it is difficult for us to accept their evidence that there was no leakage of electricity in the street electrical light pole. In fact, the police have informed the Lighting Inspector of the area in question that there was an electric shock in the scene of occurrence, which itself lends support of the FIR registered by the police on the compliant of P.W. 1 the wife of the deceased. It is therefore, reasonable to accept that the police had informed the lighting Inspector concerned about the shock in the street electric light pole. It is rather difficult to accept the evidence on the side of the 2nd respondent that nothing was written by the maintenance division in the register about the result of their inspection. Considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the evidence on the side of the claimants is wholly acceptable than the evidence let in on the side of the second respondent. We find that it has been amply proved that the deceased Subramani died due to electroduction on the night of 30-6-19991. Therefore, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased 13. Coming to the quantum of Compensation, it is clearly shown by the evidence that the deceased was aged about 35 years and that Ex. P10 pay slip issued to him in April 1991 by the Corporation of Madras shows his total emoluments as Rs. 13, 50/- per month at that time, he was a permanent sanitary worker under the Corporation of Madras, as seen from Ex. P9. The claimants are his wife and children who along are entitled to the compensation amount. Ex. P17 series, the pay slips issued by the Corporation of Madras shows that she was paid salary of Rs. 2, 379/- per month in June, 1996, she having been appoint in January, 1993 as a road sweeper. P9. The claimants are his wife and children who along are entitled to the compensation amount. Ex. P17 series, the pay slips issued by the Corporation of Madras shows that she was paid salary of Rs. 2, 379/- per month in June, 1996, she having been appoint in January, 1993 as a road sweeper. It is in evidence that the deceased was an able bodies man of good health as seen from the post mortem certificate. In such circumstances, it is quite likely that he would have lived his full normal life and would have served the Corporation of Madras until he retired at 58 years of age, but for his untimely death in this occurrence. It is therefore reasonable to fix his salary at not less than Rs. 3, 000/- per month in his services had he not met with has premature death in the occurrence. Learned arbitrator has also arrived at the average gross future monthly income and deducted one-third of this by way of personal expenses and other liabilities of the deceased which would have a balance of Rs. 1, 450/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 1, 500/- per month. He adopted the multiplier of 12 and arrived at the award of compensation at Rs. 2, 16, 000/-. He deducted Rs. 37, 884/- and Rs. 22, 500/- at the rate of Rs. 451/- per month for a period of 7 years from 1-7-1991 to 30-6-1998 and at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month over a period of five years respectively. After deducting these two amounts, he arrived at the balance of Rs. 1, 55, 616/- which was rounded off to Rs. 1, 56, 000/-. He added Rs. 15, 000/- towards damages for loss of consortium and loss of estate making the total of Rs. 1, 71, 000/- which amount to carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the writ petition till realisation. The arbitrator, in our opinion, has rightly arrived at Rs. 1, 500/- as monthly income and multiplied the same by the multiplier of 12. The procedure adopted by the learned arbitrator in fixing the compensation is just, proper and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is contended by the Corporation that the adoption of the multiplier of 12 and the award of interest at 12% is on high side. The procedure adopted by the learned arbitrator in fixing the compensation is just, proper and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is contended by the Corporation that the adoption of the multiplier of 12 and the award of interest at 12% is on high side. We are unable to accept the said contention. The arbitrator has rightly applied the 12 multiplier by taking into consideration the age of the deceased by applying the principles laid down in the rulings of the Supreme Court. We are therefore, also of the opinion that the adoption of the 12 multiplier is proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The award of 12% p.a. interest by the arbitrator, in our opinion, is reasonable and taking into consideration the prevailing rate of interest charged by the nationalised banks and other financial institutions. None of the objections raised by the second respondent merit acceptance. No misconduct or irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings has been alleged against the arbitrator. The arbitrator has followed the correct procedure and has recorded the findings on proper appreciation of facts and evidence and has passed the award accordingly. There is no error apparent on the face of the award. Therefore, in our opinion the reasons assigned by the arbitrator in arriving at the conclusion cannot be assailed on any ground. It is settled law by catena of decisions that it is not open to this court to substitute its own reasons to that of the arbitrator, as long as those reasons do not suffer from the error apparent on the face of the records or otherwise unreasonable and based on surmises and conjectures. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent Corporation of Madras that the arbitrator in exercising his jurisdiction has acted unreasonable or capaciously or has ignored the relevant facts and has misdirected himself. Then certainly it is not open to this court to interfere with the award of the arbitrator. Therefore, we ratify the award passed by the arbitrator in all respects, except a slight modification that the 2nd respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 1, 71, 000/- as compensation with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of payment of Rs. Therefore, we ratify the award passed by the arbitrator in all respects, except a slight modification that the 2nd respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 1, 71, 000/- as compensation with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of payment of Rs. 50, 000/- as interim compensation pursuant to the order of this court and on the balance of the amount after deducting Rs. 50, 000/- from the date the amount of Rs. 50, 000/- was paid till realisation. The sum of Rs. 50, 000/- already paid by way of interim compensation will be deducted and given credit to them the amount of compensation payable to the claimants as directed earlier by us in our order dated 19-6-1996. For depositing the amount as ordered, time is granted till 24-3-1997. On such deposit being made in this court, 25% of the same shall be paid to the mother first appellant. The remaining amount shall be invested in any one of the Scheduled Banks in the names of all the minors as first appellant as guardian, initially for a period of three years. It is open to any of the minor who becomes major to apply for payment of his/her share. If any one of them remains minor even after three years the deposit of his share shall continue until he becomes major 14. The arbitrator has held 11 sittings and has conducted the proceedings within a short period of two months. Considering the nature of the work, time taken by the arbitrator and the stake involved, we fix sum of Rs. 10, 000 (rupees ten thousand only) by way of remuneration to the arbitrator which shall be paid by the 2nd respondent Corporation of Madras within 2 weeks by demand draft drawn in the name of the arbitrator. There will be no order as to costs in this writ appeal. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 217/97 is closed as unnecessary.