BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.1314 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2007 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., No.6, West Masi Street, 1st Floor, Madurai. .. Appellant Vs 1.Padmini alias Padmavathy 2.Rajesh alias Raheskannan 3.V.Kumaravel .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.07.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.366 of 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Periyakulam. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian ^For RR1 and R2 ... Mr.M.Ajmalkhan For R3 ... Mr.K.Srinivasan :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated
31.07.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.366 of 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV,
Periyakulam.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 31.07.2006 awarded compensation to a
tune of Rs.2,71,800/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy one thousand and eight hundred
only) under the following sub-heads:
For loss of income -Rs.1,84,800/-
For transportation -Rs. 1,000/-
For extra nourishment -Rs. 500/- For damage to dress -Rs. 500/- For funeral expenses -Rs. 5,000/- For loss of consortium -Rs. 50,000/- For loss of love and affection -Rs. 30,000/- -------------- Total -Rs.2,71,800/- --------------
4. The challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum. The gist and
kernel of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the memorandum of appeal
could be portrayed thus:
The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, even though the deceased died
at the age of 55 as a coolie.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ‘just
compensation’?
6. On point:
The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Corporation by placing
reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his arguments to the effect that
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards
loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only)
towards loss of love and affection, which are obviously on the higher side and
there are no basis for awarding such compensation under those sub heads, whereas
the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants would submit that
the claimants are the wife and the son of the deceased and in such a case the
compensation awarded is very moderate and that may be confirmed.
7. The Tribunal simply took up the monthly income of the deceased in a sum
of Rs.2,100/- (Rupees two thousand and hundred only) at the rate of Rs.70/-
(Rupees seventy only) per day as his wages. I am of the considered opinion that
the accident occurred during the year 2003 and as such taking into consideration
the prevailing rate of wages and the capacity of the deceased, his monthly
income could rightly be fixed at Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred
only) and that would meet the ends of justice.
8. It is a trite proposition of law that 1/3 of the income should be
deducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for
maintaining himself had he been alive irrespective of the fact whether the
deceased lead the life of a Bohemian or that of a Spartan.
9. The multiplier 11 chosen by the Tribunal is correct as the Second
Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act would contemplate it. I am fully
aware of the fact that in all cases the multiplier as found suggested in the
Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be taken as
conclusive. However, in this case, the wife and the son of the deceased are the
claimants and in such a case unless multiplier 11 is chosen, significant amount
could not be arrived at, which would be of support to them. Hence, I do not
incline to vary the multiplier 11. Hence, the compensation under the head
‘loss of income’ shall be re-fixed at Rs.2,20,000/- (2500 x 12 x 16 x 2/3 =
2,20,000/-) (Rupees two lakhs and twenty thousand only).
10. Towards loss of consortium for the first respondent/first claimant,
the wife, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
and that could be reduced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only).
11. Towards loss of love and affection for the second respondent/second
claimant, the son, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand only) and that could be reduced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand
only).
12. It is a fact that four days after the accident alone, while the
deceased was taking treatment in the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries and
during that period the dependant might have incurred expenses for medical
treatment and attendant charges and that could be quantified in a sum of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only).
13. Towards transport charges a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand
only) and towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand
only) could also be awarded.
14. Towards extra nourishment and damage to dress appropriate amounts have
been awarded, which require no interference. Accordingly, the compensation is
modified as under:
For loss of income -Rs.2,20,000/-
For transportation -Rs. 2,000/-
For extra nourishment -Rs. 500/- For damage to dress -Rs. 500/- For funeral expenses -Rs. 3,000/- For loss of consortium -Rs. 15,000/- For loss of love and affection -Rs. 15,000/- For medical expenses and attendant charges -Rs. 15,000/- -------------- Total -Rs.2,71,000/- --------------
15. As such the total compensation arrived at is in pari materia with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as such no interference with the award
of the Tribunal is warranted.
16. I, therefore do not find any merit in this Appeal and accordingly it
is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected M.P. is also dismissed.
smn
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
the Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.IV,
Periyakulam.