BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/03/2010 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD).No.519 of 2003 New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Pondicherry. ... Appellant Vs 1. Palaniammal 2. Rajeshwari 3. M/s.Palani Vilas, No.45.24.K.64/A, Amin Abbas Nagar, Karnool, Andhra Pradesham. ... Respondents PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against Judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Trichirapally, made in M.C.O.P.No.839 of 1999 dated 27.12.2001. !For Appellant ... Mr.R.Maheswaran ^For Respondents For R1 & R2 ... Mr.Ilanchezhiyan :JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against
the Judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional
District Judge) Trichirapally, made in M.C.O.P.No.839 of 1999 dated 27.12.2001.
2. The appellant is the Insurance Company. One Mr.Vijayakumar took his
minor sister Rajeshwari to school at 8.00 a.m. on 21.11.1997 in a bicycle at
Thekkamalai Kovilpatti, Trichy-Dindigul main road. While so, a tanker lorry
insured with the appellant, came behind and hit him at Thekkamalai Kovilpatti.
Due to the accident, the pillion rider of the bicycle got injured and
Mr.Vijayakumar died. The rider was aged about 19 years at the time of
accident. The mother of the deceased and minor sister of the deceased filed
M.C.O.P.No.839 of 1999, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy,
claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. According to the claimants,
the deceased was a Tailor. He was earing a sum of Rs.200/- per day.
3. Both the claimants got examined on the side of the claimants and
Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. No witness was examined on the side of the
appellant and the owner of the tanker lorry. The Tribunal passed an award
dated 27.12.2001 granting a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation with 9%
interest and costs under the following heads:
(i) for loss of income = Rs.2,88,000 (ii) for love and affection ( for both claimants) = Rs. 10,000 (iii) for funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000 ------------ Total = Rs.3,00,000 ------------
The present appeal is against the said award made in M.C.O.P.No.839 of 1999
dated 27.12.2001.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant makes two submissions. (i) The
Tribunal erred in taking Rs.2,250/- as monthly earnings of the deceased. (ii)
The Tribunal erroneously adopted ’16’ as multiplier and it should have been ’15’
as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The learned counsel submits that as per the Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicle Act, Rs.15,000/- could be taken as annual income for a non-earning
member and that therefore the Tribunal should have taken only Rs.15,000/- as
annual income before deduction.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that
the Tribunal came to categorical conclusion that the deceased was working as a
Tailor and that his daily earning was fixed at Rs.75/-. It is further submitted
that thought it was deposed that the deceased earned Rs.150/- per day, the
Tribunal refused to agree with the same and fixed Rs.75/- per day as the
earnings. Hence, the grievances of the appellant is not correct. The following
finding of the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:-
kDjhuh;fs; nUtUk; thfd tpgj;jpy; nwe;j tp$aFkhh; ilyh; bjhHpypy; jpdk; U.150/-
rk;ghjpj;jjhf Fwpg;gpLfpwhh;fs;. me;j tUkhdj;jpy; jhd; mtiu ek;gp thH;e;J
te;jjhff; Fwpg;gpLfpwhh;fs;. kDjhuh;fs; Fwpg;gpl;lgo thfd tpgj;jpy; nwe;j
mth;fs; jug;g[ tp$aFkhUf;F taJ 19 MFk;. mth; Bkw;fz;lgo bjhHpy; bra;gth; vd;W
kDjhuh;fs; Fwpg;gpLtij epuhfhpf;f KoahJ. Mdhy; kDjhuh;fs; Fwpg;gpl;lgo mtUf;F
jpdk; U.150/- tUkhdk; vd;gjw;F Vw;ff;Toa rhl;rpak; ny;iy. nUe;jBghjpYk;, Bkw;go
egh; ilyh; bjhHpy; bra;af;Toath; vd;W kDjhuh; Fwpg;gpLtjhy; mth; jpdKk; U.75/-
f;F FiwahJ rk;gs tUkhdk; cs;stuhf Vw;gJ rhpahdJ. me;j tifapy; mtUila khj
tUkhdk; U.2250/-. kDjhuh; jug;g[ tp$aFkhUf;F te;Js;sJ vd;W jPh;khdpj;J mtUila Ra
bryt[f;F 1/3 mspj;J kPjp U.1,500/- mtiur; rhh;e;Js;s mtUila jha;, Kjy; kDjhuh;
gHdpak;khs;, jpUkzkhfhj ikdh; rBfhjhp 2k; kDjhuh; uhB$!;thp MfpBahUf;F
rtul;ridf;F bryt[r; bra;jjhf njpy; e&;lNL fzf;fpl vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.@
7. Moreover, 1/3rd was also deducted and a sum of Rs.1,500/- was taken as
loss of dependency, after deduction. Hence, the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and the same is rejected.
8. Regarding the application of multiplier, the learned counsel for the
claimants fairly submits that the multiplier ’15’ could be used and proper
compensation could be worked out.
9. In these circumstances, a sum of Rs.1500 x 12 x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/- is
worked as the loss of income. I am of the view that the amount paid towards love
and affection is on the lower side and also no transportation charges was given.
Under these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the
Tribunal, as a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation and hence the
award is confirmed as the claimants are entitled to compensation under the
following heads.
(i) for loss of income Rs.2,70,000
(ii) for love and affection
(each Rs.10,000/-) Rs.20,000
(iii) for transportation Rs. 8,000
(iv) for funeral expenses Rs. 2,000
————
Total Rs.3,00,000
————
8. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.
skn/ssl
To
The Additional District Judge,
Trichy.