JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay him a compensation, either jointly or severally, of any amount. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner's husband-Late Annadurai was purchasing some articles at Virudhachalam Bus Stand on 07.11.2004 at about 6.30 p.m., one Sub Inspector of Police and three constables assaulted the petitioner's husband and detained him in police custody. In the same date, these police personals came to the petitioner's village and took one Palanivel for enquiry. On the very next day, the said petitioner's husband Late Annadurai was dead and one Palanivel, who went to the police station for enquiry, informed that two constables and the Sub Inspector of that police station assaulted the said deceased Annadurai. After the death of petitioner's husband, she filed a Crl.O.P.No.6536 of 2005 seeking to transfer the investigation, pending on the file of third respondent Police Station in Crime No.465 of 2004, to C.B.C.I.D., Chennai. Subsequently, this case was investigated and a report has been filed to that effect. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, being left with two sons and a minor daughter, filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission (in short "the Commission"), alleging violation of human rights, since her husband died due to multiple injuries caused by the attacks inflicted by the policemen in the custody. Thereafter, the Commission, in its order dated 02.04.2007, after going into the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, came to the conclusion that it is a case of custodial death and the victim had suffered grievous injuries in the hands of police personals and finally, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Even though, the learned Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-on its own on the complaint given by the petitioner to take action against the erring police officials, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said direction given by the Commission for payment ofRs.1,50,000/-cannot deter the petitioner from claiming sufficient and suitable compensation, as the entire family is deprived of breadwinner and also loss of future income. 4. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Lakshmana Naidu (deceased) and another v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2006 (4) CTC 225 ) for a proposition that if a death of any innocent person is caused due to the torture by any Government officials, either police or forest officials, this would amount to violation of fundamental rights, therefore, the State has to pay suitable compensation to the dependant of the deceased. In the said judgment, this Court directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs along with 9% interest. Therefore, he pleaded, by applying the said ratio of this Court, a suitable compensation amount should be directed to be paid by the State for the illegal act done by their police officials. 5. In support of his submission, he further relied upon the following judgments for enhancement of compensation: i. Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (3) MLJ 167 ) ii. Rohini Linga v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (5) MLJ 822) iii. R.Rajamani v State of Tamil Nadu 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that, after the petitioner's husband died in the police station when he was taken for enquiry in a doubt case on the fateful day, the petitioner made a complaint before the Commission and thereafter, the Commission, accepting the report of the RDO, who was appointed to go into the veracity of the custodial death of the deceased Annadurai, passed an order dated 02.04.2007 directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The first respondent, after accepting the order of the Commission, deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-by passing G.O.Ms.No.1573, Public (Law and Order E) Department, dated 26.09.2007. Having accepted the said GO along with compensation awarded by the Commission, the petitioner, once again, cannot resort to this Court by filing a writ petition seeking enhancement of compensation. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Having accepted the said GO along with compensation awarded by the Commission, the petitioner, once again, cannot resort to this Court by filing a writ petition seeking enhancement of compensation. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The question, whether the cause of death of the petitioner's husband Late Annadurai was due to ill-treatment of Police personals belonging to the Villupuram Police Station, has already been decided by the Commission, accepting the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer(RDO), who was appointed to go into the question of custodial death of the petitioner's husband. The RDO, after conducting detailed enquiry, submitted his report on 25.04.2005, implicating the police personals responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband. Accepting the report of the RDO, the Commission in its order dated 02.04.2007 held thus in paragraphs 13 to 15: "13. The Commission is fully satisfied that (1) the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible (2) the violation is gross and highly disturbing the conscience of the Commission and (3) the custodial torture is supported by medical report and that they are also visible marks on the victim. 14. The Commission comes to a conclusion that Annadurai was attacked by the respondent and that had stimulated his death and there is a clear violation of human rights. The Commission is of the view that the victim had suffered in the hands of the respondent and that the widow and children of the victim have to be duly compensated. 15. From the foregoing discussion, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that: (1) the respondent attacked the victim in the bus stand and also while he was in the police custody in the night of 07.11.2004. (2) the injuries should have brought so much stress and strain on him and which in turn might have stimulated the death of the victim along with cerebral anoxia. (3) there was a clear violation of human rights by the respondent. (4) the respondent wilfully mislead all the authorities and also this Commission." The Commission, by holding so as stated above, directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the deceased wife/petitioner herein. (3) there was a clear violation of human rights by the respondent. (4) the respondent wilfully mislead all the authorities and also this Commission." The Commission, by holding so as stated above, directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the deceased wife/petitioner herein. Admittedly, the said amount was also duly paid to the petitioner by passing G.O.Ms.No.1573, Public (Law and Order E) Department, dated 26.09.2007. Therefore, now the question, whether the petitioner and her family, who had already received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-as directed by the Commission, are still entitled to receive any more compensation. 9. In this context, it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2008) 3 MLJ 167 ), wherein this Court, while considering the quantum of compensation in respect of custodial death of a person, who died due to the assault of the police personals, held that the family of the deceased needs to be reasonably compensated and holding so, enhanced the compensation from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs. For better appreciation, paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof are extracted hereunder: "15. It is also seen from the grounds of the memorandum of appeal that the appellant's sons were aged 23, 20 and 15 years and daughters were aged 22, 18 and 17 years at the time of death of her husband. These particulars furnished by the appellant regarding her children were not disputed by the respondents in any way. Thus, it is clear that the family of the deceased is crunching under financial difficulties, presumably because of the sudden loss of the head of the family prematurely, that too in usual circumstances, which are attributed to police excesses. From the above particulars furnished by the appellant, which remain unchallenged, it is further clear that the appellant has to give in marriage a daughter and also two sons, besides looking after her grand-son, whose parents committed suicide. 16. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to enhance the compensation ordered by the learned single Judge from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs as has been prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. This writ appeal is allowed accordingly. 16. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to enhance the compensation ordered by the learned single Judge from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs as has been prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. This writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No Costs." The above said ratio laid down by this Court would apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, as in this case, it is also an admitted fact that the deceased Annadurai died only due to the assault and torture made by the police personals during the police custody, as a result, the poor family of the said deceased, having his wife, two minor sons and a minor daughter is left without a breadwinner. 10. Similarly, in the case of Rohini Lingam v. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2008) 5 MLJ 822 ), the deceased therein filed a writ petition seeking compensation on the ground that when her husband was in judicial custody, pending investigation, he was murdered in the Sub Jail, Nagercoil and this Court, by considering the age of the deceased, who was 36 at the time of the death and also plight of the family, which consisted of his wife, two minor children and aged parents, awarded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs along with interest @ 6% as compensation. 11. In the light of the above mentioned ratio if the case on hand is considered, I am of the considered view that there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Commission is only a meagre compensation, hence, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, just and reasonable compensation shall be awarded by applying the multiplier method. 12. In this case, the age of the deceased was 40 at the time of death. The deceased was owning four acres of land and therefore, it was claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.1 lakh per annum. But, to substantiate the income of the deceased, no document was produced. In a scenario like this, this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions have settled the issue that even if there is no documentary evidence to reach the monthly income of the deceased, a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-can be taken as a notaional income. In a scenario like this, this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions have settled the issue that even if there is no documentary evidence to reach the monthly income of the deceased, a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-can be taken as a notaional income. Therefore, applying the said ratio, if the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month, the annual income of the deceased, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personable expenses, comes to Rs.36,000/-. 13. Besides, in respect of adoption of multiplier, as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997, if this Court applies the multiplier of 15', as the deceased was 40 years at the time of death, then the loss of income comes to Rs.5,40,000/-(36000 x 15). In respect of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, if a sum of Rs.25,000/ - each is added, then the same would be just and reasonable compensation, as the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and he had left behind him the petitioner-wife, with two minor sons and a minor daughter. Therefore, in all, the petitioner is entitled to receive the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-, instead of Rs.1,50,000/- as awarded by the Commission. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs.4,40,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the above terms, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.