JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court), Madurai dated 08-10-2002, made in M.C.O.P. No. 718/1998, United India Insurance Company Limited, Madurai-2 has preferred the above appeal.
2. In respect of death of one Dr. Rajathi in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 27-10-1997, her husband and minor children preferred a claim of Rs. 40,02,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and 4 more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5, besides marking Exs. P-1 to 26 in support of their claim for compensation. On the side of the owner and Insurance company of the vehicle, no witness was examined, nor document was marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry TN 59 E 9151, passed an award for Rs. 18,63,000/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Questioning the said award, the United India Insurance company has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Even at the outset, Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company fairly states that they have no grievance with regard to the finding on the negligence aspect as well as even the quantum of compensation, and that they are mainly aggrieved by the income arrived at by the Tribunal, said to have been derived from the private practice of the deceased for which, there was absolutely no evidence to prove either the practice or the actual income derived from it. According to him, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased would earn at least Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of private practice. In the light of the limited question raised by the appellant, we are of the view that it is unnecessary for us to consider the finding regarding negligence and the quantum other than the income derived from private practice. It is seen from the award that the Tribunal, based on the complaint-Ex.P-1; the order of the Criminal Court dated 22-6-98-Ex.P-3 convicting the lorry driver, and the evidence of eye witness-P.W.3, and in the absence of any evidence that the accident was not caused due to his negligent driving, has rightly concluded that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry.
5. In so far as the quantum, it is seen that the deceased was a qualified M.B.B.S., doctor and that at the time of the accident, she was working as Medical Officer in Madurai Corporation with a salary of Rs. 9,495/- per month. First claimant is her husband and claimants 2 to 4 are her minor children. P.W.1, husband of the deceased, has produced various documents to show that her wife was a qualified doctor working as Medical Officer in Madurai Corporation and also getting sizeable income by way of her private practice. Exs. P-4 to P-10 show that after completion of her studies and after undertaking necessary training, the degree of M.B.B.S., was conferred on the deceased. Exs. P-21 and P-22 show that she had registered her name in the Medical Council of India to do private practice. Ex.P-15 is the lease agreement dated 19-5-96 entered into between the owner of the house where the deceased doctor is said to have practised privately and the deceased. Exs. P-15 and P-23 are lease deeds. Ex.P-16 is the birth register maintained by Madurai Corporation showing that baby was born in the clinic run by the deceased. Rental receipts have been marked as Ex.P-24 series. Apart from the above documentary evidence, P.Ws.2 and 4 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the deceased doctor was running a private clinic. P.W.1 has also produced Exs. P-17 and P-19 which show that the deceased had purchased a new car in her name and R.C. Book relating to the car also stands in the name of the deceased. Even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no dispute with regard to the employment of the deceased as Medical Officer in Madurai Corporation and her monthly salary, namely, Rs. 9,495/-. P.W.1 had produced documents to show that the deceased was a doctor by profession and employed in Madurai Corporation Dispensary and also salary certificate etc., to show that she was getting Rs. 9,495/- per month. Even though the evidence of P.W.5, an officer of Madurai Corporation coupled with Ex. P-12 and P-26 was to the effect that there is likelihood of increase in the salary and other emoluments of the deceased in future but for the accident, the Tribunal has not accepted the same. In other words, it is to be noted that the Tribunal has not considered and granted any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. We have already held that the deceased was aged about 38 years. In this back-ground now let us consider whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the deceased would earn future sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards private practice is sustainable or not? We have already referred to the evidence of P.W.1, husband of the deceased regarding her private practice and running a clinic for which P.W.1 produced Ex.P-15 least agreement dated 19-5-96, Ex.P-16-Record Book to show that a baby was born in her clinic, Ex.P-23 dated 19-5-96, another lease agreement-Ex.P-24 series-rental receipts, Ex.P-25 dated 27-10-97 Record sheet to show that a baby was born in her hospital. In the light of these oral and documentary evidence and considering the fact that the deceased being a female doctor, we accept the case of P.W.1 that she was getting income by way of private practice though in the claim petition and in his evidence, he has claimed she was getting Rs. 20,000/- towards private practice. In the absence of income-tax proceedings such as assessment, income-tax returns etc., the claim of Rs. 20,000/- per month by way of income from private practice cannot be accepted in toto. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the absence of any evidence namely, income-tax returns and income-tax proceedings/orders to show that she was an income-tax assessee, it is highly doubtful whether she earned any amount by way of running a private clinic. It is true that there is no document from the Income-tax Department, nor any details furnished regarding her returns, assessment etc. Merely because there is no material to show that the income earned by her was subjected to income-tax, it cannot be presumed that she was not getting any income by way private practice. We have already referred to the clinching documents such as Exs. P-15, P-16, P-23, P-24 and P-25 which would go to show that she was running a private clinic, apart from her regular work as Medical Officer in the Corporation of Madurai. P.W.1 has also produced Exs. P-17 to P-20 to show that the deceased had purchased a new car from and out of her income. Considering all the above materials, we hold that it would be probable and acceptable that the deceased would have earned Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of her private practice and we are in agreement with the similar conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. From the materials placed, we are satisfied that the deceased doctor was getting Rs. 9,500/-per month as salary from Madurai Corporation and Rs. 5,000/- per month by running a private clinic and altogether she was getting an income of Rs. 14,500/-. Considering her age, the Tribunal by applying right multiplier, namely, 16 and arrived at a pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs. 27,84,000/-. It is but proper to deduct 1/3 towards her personal expenses. Though the Tribunal has deducted 1/3, it has wrongly mentioned that the same was deducted towards lumpsum payment. On the other hand, we are of the view that the deduction of 1/3 should be towards her personal expenses. After fixing a sum of Rs. 18,56,000/- towards pecuniary loss, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and altogether granted compensation of Rs. 18,63,000/- which we find is quite reasonable and acceptable.
6. In the light of our discussion, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and we do not find any valid ground for interference. On the other hand, in the light of the acceptable materials both in the form of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, we are of the view that the amount arrived at by it is just and reasonable and we confirm the same. Net result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 5229 of 2003 is closed.