IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:13.11. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.1308 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Third Party Cell, 24, Moore Street, Chennai.1 .. Appellant Vs. 1.R.Lalitha 2. R.Sudha 3. R.Shok Kumar 4. R.Annamalai .. Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 31.01.2007 in MCOP No. 2049 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(F.T.C.I), Chennai. For Appellant : Mr. V.Srikanth For respondents : Mr.T.G.Balachandran (R1 to R3) No appearance for R.4. . . . JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.01.2007 in MCOP No. 2049 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.I), Chennai.
2. This is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 08.02.2002 at 12.00 hours at G.S.T road. The deceased Anandan, said to be aged about 22 years engaged in Auto Finance and Real Estate business, was riding a two wheeler, when the said vehicle was hit by a Tata Sumo vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and in that accident, the said Anandan suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Chengalpet and treated there as in patient from 08.02.2002 to 10.02.2002 and thereafter, he was shifted to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and treated there from 10.02.2002 to 12.02.2002. However, in spite of medical attention, he died on 12.02.2002 at 8.15 a.m. The mother aged about 45 years, sister aged about 17 years, brother aged about 20 years filed a claim petition for compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on the death of the said Anandan.
3. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Munusamy was examined as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P1 to P.10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle – insured with the appellant, and the liability of the Insurance company to compensate the claimant is not in dispute.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 onwards in answer to point No.2. The claimants have stated that the deceased Anandan was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by his occupation as an Auto Financier and Real Estate Agent. A letter pad alone has been filed showing the nature of the business. In the absence of specific documentary evidence to show the actual business and income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, of which a sum of Rs.12,000/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the pecuniary loss to the dependents was fixed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased said to be 22 years, and that of the mother, 45 years, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 and granted a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation towards pecuniary loss. Further a sum of Rs.25,662/- was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.10,404/- towards transport expenses was awarded. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was granted for funeral expenses. In all, a sum of Rs., 3,98,066/- was granted as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%. as under:
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits
Rs. 3,60,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 25,662/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 10,404/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 3,98,066/-
6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor earning member and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
7. Learned counsel Mr.Balachander appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the income of the deceased, who died in the year 2002, has been taken as Rs.3,000/- only whereas the income was higher. He, therefore, justified the total compensation stating that even if the multiplier is marginally higher, the fact that the lesser income was taken will justify the award.
8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:
The deceased was a bachelor earning member. The accident, in this case, happened in the year 2002. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in 2004 ACJ 53=2004(1)TN MAC (SC)16 = 2004(2) L.W 15=(2004)1 M.L.J.82(SC) (The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay VS.Shri Laxman Iyer, the compensation for pecuniary loss in a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- is justified. Further for medical expenses a sum of Rs.25,663/- has been granted as per bills. For Transport expenses a sum of Rs.10,404/- was awarded and that can be justified since the deceased was taken to two hospitals, one at Chengalpet and the other at Vellore and the claimants had to be with the deceased during that period. As far as the funeral expenses is concerned, meagre amount of Rs.2,000/- has been granted and no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the mother, sister and brother of the deceased. Hence quantunm of compensation does not require further reduction.
9. Considering all these aspects, the quantum of compensation does not require any interference by this Court as also the interest at 7.5% since the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007.
10. Finding no merits, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire award amount has been deposited. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
PAL
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Fast Track Court No.I,
Chennai