IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2011
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
CMA.No.3260 OF 2006
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited
Chennai Appellant
Vs
1. Muthusamy
2. Ponnammal
3. Murugesan Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.379/2004 by the learned District Judge (MACT) Perambalur.
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Narasimhan
For Respondent : Mrs.C.Sangamithirai-RR1&2
JUDGEMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.379/2004 by the learned District Judge (MACT) Perambalur.
2. The claimant, who are the parents of the deceased Govindan, filed the above claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads before the Tribunal for the death of their deceased son in the motor accident occurred on 17.6.2004 at about 4.00 a.m. at Venganoor, Trichy to Chennai NH Road. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,500/- as total compensation under various heads. As against the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
3. Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, the learned counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that the approach of the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier method in respect of the deceased son and in taking the age of the deceased instead of taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased for arriving at the compensation is contrary to law and hence, the compensation awarded in respect of the death of the son of the claimants, who was aged about 23 years old at the time of the accident deserves to be reduced .
4. On the contrary, Mrs.C.Sangamithirai, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the findings of the Tribunal as regards the age, the income of the deceased and the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal need no interference.
5. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.
6. As regards the negligence aspect, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is not assailed or impeached by the Appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal by letting in any evidence and hence, said finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence aspect fixing the same on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed.
7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased was aged 23 years old and was working as a worker in a Petrol Bunk. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, are aged about 65 and 55 years respectively. Ex.P6 is the certificate issued by the Employer, which shows that the deceased was working in an Indian Oil Retail Outlet at Ramanatham and he was paid Rs.3000/- as monthly salary. Since the Employer was not examined, the Tribunal ignored Ex.P6 and fixed his monthly income as Rs.2000/-, which is improper. Even in the absence of any definite material evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the notional monthly income has to be fixed at Rs.3000/-, as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kamala and other (2007-1-TNMAC-1-SC). Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the loss of annual dependency would come to Rs.24,000/-. Taking the age of the mother of the deceased i.e. 55 years old at the time of the accident, 11 would be proper multiplier and the total loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.2,64,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.6000/- towards funeral expenses are awarded. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed . The impugned award is reduced from Rs.4,36,500/- to Rs.2,90,000/- with interest as mentioned above. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety thousand only)
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
Srcm
with interest 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization, as detailed below:-
The claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount after giving credit to the amount already withdrawn by them with proportionate interest. The Appellant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount with accrued interest if any. No costs.
21.10.2011
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Srcm
To:
1. The District Judge (MACT) Perambalur.
2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras
CMA.No.3260/2006