Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-as compensation for the death of father of the petitioner C. Krishnamurthy and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation for the death of mother of the petitioner K.Chitra and to pass further suitable orders on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner, while he was a minor, at the age of 14 years, lost his father and mother on 12.10.2005 due to sudden fall of an old big tree on the Maruthi Car, in which they were travelling near Dr.Alagappa Road at Purasawalkam, Chennai. The car was crushed, which resulted in instant killing of petitioner's parents. The fatal accident and the consequential death of the parents would not have taken place if the officials of the second respondent had exercised proper care and caution and taken precautionary measures to cut and remove the old trees standing on both sides of the road. (b) Petitioner's father passed Master Degree in Urban Engineering in the year 1994 with distinction and he was doing Ph.D research work in Anna University. At the time of his death, he was working as Assistant Director at the office of the Director, Highways Research Station, Chennai-32, and was getting a salary of Rs.18,526/- per month. Petitioner's mother passed M.A., B.Ed. and M.Phil degrees and served as a teacher in P.M.R.Higher Secondary School, Mugappair, Chennai, and was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of her death. (c) Petitioner, along with his parents was residing at Door No.1163, 41st Block, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai-600101, and at the time of accident and death of his parents he was studying in 8th Standard in D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Mugappair, Chennai, and he being the only son, he received best parental care and attention including quality of education. (d) The said accident/untimely death occurred on 12.10.2005 when the parents of the petitioner went to Madhar Sha Textile Show Room at Purasawalkam for purchasing clothes and after purchase, they were returning to their home. Petitioner's father was driving the car slowly and cautiously and his mother was seated next to him in the front seat. (d) The said accident/untimely death occurred on 12.10.2005 when the parents of the petitioner went to Madhar Sha Textile Show Room at Purasawalkam for purchasing clothes and after purchase, they were returning to their home. Petitioner's father was driving the car slowly and cautiously and his mother was seated next to him in the front seat. Petitioner was seated in the back seat of the car. At about 6.30 p.m. when the car approached the Mutt Street in Dr.Alagappa road, a big old tree standing on the left side of the road fell on the car, instantly crushed the car and thereby killed the parents of the petitioner who were sitting in the front seats of the car. As the petitioner was sitting in the back seat, he escaped with injuries. (e) G3 Kilpauk Police, Chennai-10 registered FIR for the said incident in Cr.No.969 of 2005 under section 174 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, at the time of accident petitioner's mother was wearing 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the same were also taken away by unknown miscreants. (f) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the tree, which fell on the car was very old and was standing in a very precarious condition and could not withstand rain and wind and was uprooted from the earth which was not taken care of by the officials of the second respondent and many of the residents of the locality including one Poongavanam, Son of Renganathan, a resident of Purasawalkam made complaints and even thereafter no action was taken to remove the said tree. The said fatal accident had occurred due to the negligence and careless attitude of the officials of the second respondent Corporation. (g) It is also stated in the affidavit that only after the said fatal accident, which was reported in almost all the newspapers and TV channels on 12.10.2005, the officials of the Corporation of Chennai during the last week of October, 2005 found that there were 877 trees which stood in precarious condition might fall at any time and decided to cut and remove them. The said decision of the second respondent taken at the last week of October, 2005 was also reported in newspapers. Had the said decision was taken earlier, the innocent lives of the parents of the petitioner would have been saved. The said decision of the second respondent taken at the last week of October, 2005 was also reported in newspapers. Had the said decision was taken earlier, the innocent lives of the parents of the petitioner would have been saved. Thus, the officials of the second respondent are responsible for the death of the petitioner's parents as they failed to discharge their statutory duty and their total inaction coupled with culpable negligence caused the loss of lives of the petitioner's parents. (h) It is stated in the affidavit that Dr.Alagappa Road in Purasawalkam is a busy arterial road, where the movement of vehicles are heavy and no other alternate route is available. The uninterrupted flow of vehicles and constant use of the road by the pedestrians makes it always congested. Thus, the officials of the second respondent should have been all the more careful to cut the worn out trees and due to the untimely death of petitioner's parents, petitioner could not pursue his studies for one year and even thereafter he could not continue to study in the reputed D.A.V. School in Chennai and was forced to settle with his grand-father at Salem. The grand-parents are very old and the petitioner having lost his parents at the age of 13, the paternal grand-father was appointed as guardian in G.O.P.No.28 of 2006 by the First Additional District Court, Salem. The father and mother of the petitioner's father have already gave no objection to the petitioner to receive compensation that may be awarded. (i) At the time of death, the petitioner's father was aged 42 years and mother was 38 years old. The financial prospects of the petitioner's father and mother, who were highly qualified are also affected due to their untimely death, which caused loss of income, love and affection, natural care, guidance, etc., to the petitioner, who is the only son of his parents. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,000/-each due to the death of petitioner's father and mother from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. On 14.10.2006, the guardian of the petitioner, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, sent a representation by RPAD to the second respondent and prayed for paying compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs respectively for the untimely death of petitioner's father and mother. On 14.10.2006, the guardian of the petitioner, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, sent a representation by RPAD to the second respondent and prayed for paying compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs respectively for the untimely death of petitioner's father and mother. No action being taken for over seven months, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner through his guardian, which was admitted by this Court on 12.6.2007 and ordered notice to the respondents. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that one A.Poongavanan, son of R.Ranganathan residing at Door No.29, Saravana Perumal Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 084 has filed a supporting affidavit stating that the old tree (which fell on the car) was standing on the side of Dr.Alagappa Road, Purasawalkam for several years and the said tree was leaning towards the road and it was a threat to the road-users. Representations were submitted to the Corporation authorities by the residents including the said Poongavanam. No action was taken by the Corporation officials and on 12.10.2005 there was rain in the said area and at about 6.30 p.m. the old tree fell on a Maruthi Car approaching the Mutt Road, which resulted in the death of two persons in the car. C.Krishnamurthi and K.Chithra died due to the fall of tree and minor Karthik aged 14 years was injured, who was removed form the car and he escaped from the accident with injuries. 4. The second respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the writ petition is not maintainable as the issues raised in this writ petition are to be proved factually after full trial before the Civil Court after examination of witnesses and without examining any witness to prove the negligence, the qualification, expectancy of life, their income, this Court cannot decide the question of compensation, if any payable. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Corporation is not responsible for any accidental death due to the occurrence of natural calamity and therefore the petitioner cannot claim compensation from the Corporation. 5. Mr.M.Naveenkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the death of petitioner's parents, father and mother due to the fall of tree on 12.10.2005 at about 6.30 p.m. is not in dispute. 5. Mr.M.Naveenkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the death of petitioner's parents, father and mother due to the fall of tree on 12.10.2005 at about 6.30 p.m. is not in dispute. A criminal complaint was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in crime No.969/2005 on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner before the G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai, wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioner's father and mother died due to the fall of tree on the vehicle on 12.10.2005 at 18.30 hours while they were travelling in a Maruthi Car at Dr.Alagappa Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai. The learned counsel also submitted that having noticed the untimely death of petitioner's father and mother, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was kind enough to sanction a sum of Rs.50,000/-each on 3.12.2005 from Chief Minister's Relief Fund and copy of the condolence letter of the Chief Minister addressed to the petitioner is also produced before this Court. The learned counsel also pointed out that one A.Poongavanam, who is a resident of Purasawalkam, filed supporting affidavit stating that the accident should have been averted if the old tree was cut and removed in time and due to the negligence of the Corporation Authorities in not removing the old tree, which was leaning on the road side in Dr.Alagappa Road, the accident occurred and in spite of giving representation several times to remove the trees, no action was taken by the officials of the second respondent, Corporation of Chennai. 6. The learned counsel also submitted that after the said accident during the last week of October, 2005, the officials of the Corporation ordered enumeration of dangerous trees standing on the road side in Chennai city and 877 old/worn out trees in ten divisions were ordered to be cut and removed. It was also noticed by the officials that from 10.10.2005 to 27.10.2005, 85 trees fell down and in Kilpauk area alone 14 trees have fallen. Action was taken to cut and remove old trees/worn out trees, the details of which are as follows: Saidapet Division .. 393 trees KodambakkamDivision .. 85 trees MylaporeDivision .. 147 trees KilpaukDivision .. 138 trees The said facts are reported in the "Dinamalar Daily" dated 28.10.2005. Action was taken to cut and remove old trees/worn out trees, the details of which are as follows: Saidapet Division .. 393 trees KodambakkamDivision .. 85 trees MylaporeDivision .. 147 trees KilpaukDivision .. 138 trees The said facts are reported in the "Dinamalar Daily" dated 28.10.2005. The learned counsel further submitted that the above narrated facts clearly reveal that no enumeration of dangerous trees standing on the road side was taken by the Corporation officials before commencement of monsoon and therefore there is negligence on the part of the officials, which resulted in fall of tree on the Maruthi Car, due to which the parents of the petitioner died and the Corporation is bound to pay just compensation for the loss of petitioner's father and mother. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent relying on the counter affidavit submitted that the fall of tree on the fateful day is an 'Act of God' and the Corporation cannot be ordered to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of petitioner's parents. The learned counsel also submitted that even if any compensation is payable, the same cannot be decided in the writ petition and the petitioner has to necessarily go before the Civil Court to arrive at the amount of compensation payable and prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father viz., Krishnamoorthy and mother Chithra died due to fall of tree on the Maruthi Car bearing registration No.TN-20-X-1130 on 12.10.2005 at 18.30 hours when they were returning home from Purasawalkam to their residence at Anna Nagar. A criminal complaint was registered in Cr.No.969/2005 on 12.10.2005 at 21.30 hours by G-3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai. In the post-mortem certificate dated 13.10.2005 of the petitioner's father and mother issued by the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital bearing Nos.1678/05 and 1679/05 it is opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple fractures and injuries. Copy of the said post-mortem certificates are found in page Nos.5 and 6 of the typed set of papers filed along with this writ petition. 10. Copy of the said post-mortem certificates are found in page Nos.5 and 6 of the typed set of papers filed along with this writ petition. 10. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the petitioner for the death of petitioner's father and mother from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund with separate condolence letters dated 3.12.2005, wherein it is stated that due to the heavy rain petitioner's father and mother died. The Chief Minister's Relief Fund amount will be sanctioned only after satisfaction and thorough verification of the incident/accident by the revenue officials. If there is any dispute regarding the manner of death of petitioner's father and mother, no amount could have been sanctioned by the Chief Minister from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the death of petitioner's father and mother due to the fall of tree on the fateful day is not disputed. The only defence raised by the second respondent is that the respondent Corporation is not responsible for the accidental death due to the occurrence of natural calamity. Thus, 'Act of God' is pleaded to deny the liability of the second respondent Corporation. The facts such as the petitioner is the only son, lost his parents at the age of 14; the qualification of the petitioner's father and mother, nature of their employment, their salary, their age; cutting of old and worn out trees after the incident i.e, during last week of October, 2005; claim made by the petitioner on 16.10.2006; etc., are not disputed. Thus, the death of the petitioner's father and mother on 12.10.2005 at 18.30 hours due to fall of tree on the Maruthi Car is proved beyond doubt. The facts pleaded by the petitioner are not in dispute to deny relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is a well settled principle of law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court that if the facts are not in dispute, the legal heirs of the victims of riot, custodial killing or death due to negligence on the part of the State authorities, can claim compensation in writ proceedings. The only impediment in entertaining the writ petition is, there may be factual disputes such as the manner of death, whether there was negligence or not, age and income of the deceased, etc. 12. The only impediment in entertaining the writ petition is, there may be factual disputes such as the manner of death, whether there was negligence or not, age and income of the deceased, etc. 12. Section 259 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 mandates the Corporation to remove dangerous trees even if the trees were standing in a private place. Section 259 reads as follows: "Section 259. Precautions in case of dangerous trees. -(1) If any tree or any branch of a tree of the fruit of any tree be deemed by the commissioner to be likely to fall and thereby to endanger any person or any structure, the commissioner may, by notice, require the owner of the said tree to secure, lop or cut down the said tree so as to prevent any danger therefrom. (2) If immediate action is necessary, the commissioner may himself, before giving such notice or before the period of notice expires secure, lop or cut down the said tree or remove the fruit thereof or fence off a part of any street or take such temporary measures, as he thinks fit to prevent danger, and the cost of so doing shall be recoverable from the owner of the tree in the manner provided in section 387." The trees standing on public streets shall vest with the Corporation as per Section 203 of the Act. As per Section 204, it is the duty of the Corporation to maintain, repair and make all improvements, which are necessary or expedient for public safety and convenience. From the above referred statutory provisions it is manifest that the Corporation is responsible for removing the dangerous trees for public safety. The said statutory duty is failed to be performed by the second respondent Corporation due to which the petitioner's parents died on 12.10.2005. 13. The enumeration of dangerous trees standing on the road sides was taken up by the officials of the Corporation only during the last week of October, 2005, i.e, after the incident which took place on 12.10.2005. During enumeration it was found that 877 trees are to be cut and removed and 85 trees had fallen already including the one tree fell at Dr.Alagappa Road, Purasawalkam on the Maruthi Car driven by petitioner's father on 12.10.2005. During enumeration it was found that 877 trees are to be cut and removed and 85 trees had fallen already including the one tree fell at Dr.Alagappa Road, Purasawalkam on the Maruthi Car driven by petitioner's father on 12.10.2005. If the enumeration was taken prior to the accident and the dangerous trees were cut and removed prior to 12.10.2005, the officials of the second respondent could possibly plead that they have taken all precautions/care to remove the dangerous trees and the particular tree fell down due to heavy rain/storm, which may be treated as an Act of God. The officials of the second respondent having failed to take enumeration and to cut and remove the dangerous trees, they are not expected to plead that the death of the petitioner's father and mother is by the Act of God alone. Thus, there is negligence on the part of the officials of the second respondent in not cutting and removing the dangerous trees and two precious lives were lost, therefore second respondent is liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the petitioner for the death of his parents on the basis of "vicarious liability". 14. The State or its instrumentality is bound to protect the person and property of every citizen and if it fails to discharge its duty, the State is liable to pay damages to the victims. The State cannot claim defence of sovereign immunity in case of tortious acts done by its employees. The State can fix accountability on its officials and initiate recovery proceedings for the loss sustained by it. The said principle is decided by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (3) LW 421 (SC) (Eureka Forbes Limited v. Allahabad Bank & Ohers) (para 44 & 45). 15. The payment of compensation can be ordered by the High Court in appropriate case, particularly when there is no factual disputes, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is no longer res integra. In this regard, the following decisions can be usefully referred to. (i) In AIR 2000 SC 988 : (2000) 2 SCC 465 (Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandima Das), a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was awarded as compensation to a Bangladeshi National, who was sexually assaulted by Eastern Railway Employee. Order of the High Court awarding the said compensation was upheld by the Supreme Court. (i) In AIR 2000 SC 988 : (2000) 2 SCC 465 (Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandima Das), a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was awarded as compensation to a Bangladeshi National, who was sexually assaulted by Eastern Railway Employee. Order of the High Court awarding the said compensation was upheld by the Supreme Court. (ii) In AIR 2001 SC 3668 : (2001) 8 SCC 151 (M.S.Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood), Rs.4.10 lakhs each was awarded for the unfortunate death of 14 young children, who died due to drowning in a river, when they were on picnic organised by the School authorities. (iii) In (2005) 9 SCC 586 (MCD v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy) the Supreme Court ordered payment of compensation to the families of those, who died in Uphaar Tragedy and directed the MCD to deposit Rs.3,01,40,000/- (Rupees Three Crores One lakh and Forty thousand) and 50% of the said amount was directed to be distributed to the Claimants. (iv) In 2011 AIR SCW 4916 (Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers), the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court of Delhi to sewerage workers' family to Rs.3.29 lakhs, over and above Rs.1.71 lakhs already paid by the Government. Insofar as our High Court is concerned, the said issue is dealt with in several cases. Few decisions are as follows: (a) 2001 WLR 174 (C.Chinnathambi v. State of Tamil Nadu) -Rs.1.50 lakhs with 12% interest was ordered to be paid to each school students, who died while water tank broke and fell on them. (b) 2004 WLR 346 (Smt.R.Dhanalakshmi v. Government of Tamil Nadu) - Rs.9.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid to the family of a prisoner, who was killed while in custody. (c) 2004 WLR 611 (DB) (The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu v. Mrs.R.Selvam) - Rs.5.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid by the State due to the killing of a medical student inside the Government Medical College Hostel. (d) 2006 WLR 13 (DB) (C.Thekkamalai v. State of Tamil Nadu) - The Division Bench enhanced the compensation from Rs.75,000/-to Rs.5.00 lakhs for the rape victim, who was illegally arrested and raped. (e) 2006 WLR 608 (Lakshmana Naidu (decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another) -A sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the family of the deceased. (e) 2006 WLR 608 (Lakshmana Naidu (decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another) -A sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the family of the deceased. (f) 2008 (6) CTC 144 (P.N.Kanagaraj v. Chief Secretry, State of Tamil Nadu) -Rs.4.10 lakhs with 9% interest was ordered for the death of a school boy. (g) 2009 (1) CTC 434 (Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu) -A sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs was directed to be paid for the death of a student in the school due to negligence of the Government School Teacher. (h) 2010 WLR 851 (DB) : 2010 (1) CWC 455 (T.Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others) - A sum of Rs.9,07,000/-was directed to be paid to the family of a person, who was shot dead by the Security Warden of Madurai Central Prison. (i) 2011 (1) CWC 786 (The Registrar Administration, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court v. Secretary to Government, Home Department) A sum of Rs.10 lakhs was ordered to the family of an advocate, who died due to not providing immediate medical treatment, in the High Court premises. (j) 2011 (6) CTC 636 (P.Ravichandran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu) - A sum of Rs.18.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the victim, who suffered 100% disability while doing drainage work. (k) 2012 (2) CTC 848 (Ganesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu) -A sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid by the State to the family of a victim, who died due to bomb attack while travelling in a Transport Corporation Bus. (l) In (2011) 1 MLJ 1409 (V.Ramar v. Director of Medical and Rural Health Services) this Court directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the family of a woman, who died during delivery due to the negligence of the Government Hospital authorities. (m)In (2011) 1 MLJ 1329 (Thangapandi v. Director of Primary Health Services) -A sum of Rs.5 lakhs was ordered to the family of a woman, who died after delivery, due to not giving proper treatment by Government Hospital Doctors. (n) In W.P.No.23003 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 this Court awarded a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the family of a deceased student as he was killed while staying in Government Hostel. 16. (n) In W.P.No.23003 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 this Court awarded a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the family of a deceased student as he was killed while staying in Government Hostel. 16. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the age of 14 years petitioner has lost his father and mother, their affection and all comforts. Petitioner's father, on the date of death, was earning a sum of Rs.18,526/-per month as he was employed as Assistant Director at the Office of the Director, Highways Research Station, Chennai-32. He has passed master's degree in Urban Engineering and was doing Ph.D in Anna University. Petitioner's mother also passed M.A., B.Ed and M.Phil degrees, who served as a teacher in a Matriculation Higher Secondary School and was earning monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. Both of them were having better prospects as they were aged 42 and 38 years respectively at the time of their death. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for the loss of his father and Rs.7 lakhs for the loss of his mother. Petitioner is already paid a total sum of Rs.1 lakh from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund on 3.12.2005. 17. Now the issue to be decided is what amount the petitioner is entitled to get as compensation for the loss of his father and mother. 18. There is no codified law for arriving at the quantum of compensation in cases of this type. The enactments like Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Workmen Compensation Act, 1948; and Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 may be applied for arriving at the just compensation. In the decision reported in (1969) 3 SCC 64 (C.K.Subramania Iyer v. T.Kunhikuttan Nair) the Supreme Court held that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at precisely. In the decision reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 (M.S.Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood) the Supreme Court held that multiplier method may be adopted to arrive at the just compensation. The age of the deceased can also be taken for arriving at a correct multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (5) LW 408 (P.S.Somanathan & Others v. District Insurance Officer & Another). 19. The age of the deceased can also be taken for arriving at a correct multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (5) LW 408 (P.S.Somanathan & Others v. District Insurance Officer & Another). 19. How the Court should decide the cases of this nature is emphasised by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 (Ibrahim v. Raju). In para 9 it is held thus, "9. This Court has time and again emphasised that the officers, who preside over the Tribunals adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure keeping in view the relevant factors. Unfortunately, despite repeated pronouncements of this Court in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of road accidents and/or their families, the Tribunals and even the High Courts do not pay serious attention to the imperative of awarding just compensation to the claimants." In (2009) 13 SCC 422 (Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan) the Supreme Court pointed out the need of giving just compensation to the victim. In paragraphs 26 and 27 it is held thus, "26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. 27. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so." This Court is bound to bear-in-mind the above stated principles for arriving at just compensation. 20. Petitioner's father was aged 42 years and was earning Rs.18,526/- per month prior to pay revision to the Government Servants made in the year 2006. Thus, leaving one third to his personal expenses, a sum of at least Rs.12,000/-per month should have been contributed to the petitioner and his mother. He might have spent Rs.2,000/-per month towards his wife i.e, to the petitioner's mother. Thus, a minimum of Rs.10,000/-per month could have been available as earnings. Petitioner's father's age of retirement being 58 years, minimum 15 multiplier must be applied as he was aged 42 at the time of death. Thus, Rs.10,000/- per month to 15 years comes to Rs.18 lakhs (Rs.10,000 x (12 x 15)). 21. Petitioner's mother was earning Rs.2,500/-per month as a teacher with better prospects. Even as a home maker, she is entitled to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. She was aged 38 years and considering her educational qualifications, she should have earned minimum of Rs.4,500/- per month in future and after deducting one third for her personal expenses, she might have contributed Rs.3,000/-to her family. As she was aged 38 years, 16 multiplier is to be adopted. Thus, the compensation can be arrived at Rs.5,76,000/- (Rs.3,000 x (16 x 12)). In toto, the petitioner is entitled to claim total compensation of Rs.23,76,000/-(Rs.18,00,000 + Rs.5,76,000), apart from claiming compensation in other heads such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. 22. The petitioner has already received a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund in the year 2005. After deducting the said amount, petitioner is entitled to get more than the amount claimed in this writ petition. The petitioner has claimed Rs.22 lakhs from the second respondent on 16.10.2006 by sending representation through RPAD and no reply was given by the second respondent. Hence the petitioner is eligible to get interest, at least from the date of demand i.e, from 16.10.2006 and the appropriate interest would be 6% per annum. The petitioner has claimed Rs.22 lakhs from the second respondent on 16.10.2006 by sending representation through RPAD and no reply was given by the second respondent. Hence the petitioner is eligible to get interest, at least from the date of demand i.e, from 16.10.2006 and the appropriate interest would be 6% per annum. By such calculation, the interest for Rs.22 lakhs for five years and six months comes to Rs.7.26 lakhs. 23. In fine, the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.29.26 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs and Twenty Six Thousands) (i.e, Rs.22 lakhs compensation and Rs.7.26 lakhs as interest), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.