IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7.11.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR CMA.NO.3466 OF 2008 AND M .P.NO.1 OF 2008 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vellore. ...Appellant Vs. 1.Rajammal 2.Varadhan 3.Raj Narain Singh (The 3rd respondent herein was set exparte before the Trial Court in the above O.P.hence notice to him may be dispensed with) ...Respondents This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Vellore in MACTOP.No.197 of 2006 dated 28.8.2007 For Appellant:Mr.S. Jayasankar For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan ---- J U D G M E N T
The New India Assurance Company Limited is on appeal challenging the award dated 28.8.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunl (Sub Court) Vellore made in MACTOP.No.197 of 2006.
2. This is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 24.2.2005 . The deceased V.Jagannathan,23 years old bachelor was riding his bicycle, when he was hit by a Container lorry, which is insured with the appellant Insurance Corporation. In that accident, he suffered serious injuries and he was taken to Government Medical College,Vellore, but inspite of treatment, he died.
3. The mother aged about 53 years and father 56 years filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation stating that the deceased bachelor was working as Manager-cum-Accountant in D.V.Engineering Works, Vellore.
4. In support of the claim, the mother was examined as PW1 and one Baskaran, an eye witness was examined as PW2 and one Venkatesan, the employer of the deceaded was examined as PW3 .Ex.A1 to Ex.A.14 were marked. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report.Ex.A2 is the copy of Postmortem Certificate Ex.A3 is the M.V.report, EX.A4 is the charge sheet Ex.A5 is the Insurance policy dated 31.3.2005, Ex.A6 is the Bonafide certificate dated 14.2.2006, Ex.A7 is the Insurance Policy dated 6.9.2006, Ex.A8 is the National permit,Ex.A9 is the Registration Book, Ex.A10 is the Birth Certificate, EX.A11 is the Death Certificate, Ex.A11 is the legal heir certificate, Ex.A12 is the Copy of driving licence EX.A13 is the Permit dated 29.4.2005 and EX.A15 is the National Permit. No oral and documentary evidence were let in on behalf of the appellants/respondents before the Tribunal.
5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who caused the fatal accident and liability fixed on the appellant Insurance company to compensate the claimants are not disputed and such finding is confirmed.
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
7. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunal in Paragraph 8. In her evidence, PW1 stated that the deceased son was a bachelor and is well qualified . He has completed Diploma Course in modern office practise and he has also completed a course in fashion technology. PW3 the employer stated that the deceased was working under him on a monthly salary of Rs.5,500/-. In support of the same, no document was marked. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.4,000/- and annual income at Rs.48,000/- of which 1/3 was deducted and the contribution to the dependent was taken at Rs.32,000/-. The Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased supported by Ex.P.2 Post-mortem certificate where it is stated that the deceased was 22 years old. The Tribunal awarded the following amount as compensation.
Sl.No.
Heads
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Pecuniary Loss (Rs.32,000 x 17)
Rs.5,44,000/-
2
Loss of love and affection
Rs. 5,000/-
Total
Rs. 5,49,000/-
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,49,000/- with 6% interest.
8. The only contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the Tribunal without any documentary evidence fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. Except the statement of the employer, no document is produced to prove the actual employment and income. He has also stated that the 17 multiplier applied in the case of the death of a bachelor earning member is on the higher side. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. His further contention is that the mother is aged at 53 years and father is at 56 years and therefore the dependency will not be there for the rest of their life . He pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the accident happened in the year 2006, the deceased was a well educated qualified bachelor and an earning member. Therefore considering the period of accident, the income fixed at Rs.4,000/- should be accepted. He pleaded that if this Court is inclined to interfere with the multiplier by way of reduction on the ground that the deceased is a bachelor earning member, suitable compensation should be granted for loss of love and affection to the claimant. He pleaded for compensation for funeral expenses and for transportation. He pleaded that interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% is very meagre and therefore the compensation need not be reduced.
10. The accident in this case happened in the year 2006. The deceased bachelor is a double diploma holder in computer operation and fashion technology. PW3, the employer has stated that the deceased was employed under him and that is not disputed. On the contrary, the income claimed is challenged as excessive and is not supported by evidence. For the purpose of determining the income, the following decisions will be relevant.
(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi vs. – Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995.
(b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. – Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999.
11. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased who were manual labourers was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2006. The deceased is well qualified and an educated bachelor. Considering the same, the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month and rightly done by the Tribunal.
12. In this case, the accident happened in the year 2006. However, as rightly pointed out by the appellant counsel, in the case of deceased bachelor, the claimants who are mother and father of the deceased cannot expect the contribution for the rest of their life. There is always the possibility of the deceased getting married and dependency getting reduced. In Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006(3) SCC 242, the Apex Court held that in the case of death of a bachelor earning member, the proper Multiplier will be 12. In this case also, the mother is aged about 55 years and the father is 56 years. In this case, the interest awarded by the Tribunal on 6% therefore in view of the Apex Court decision in LAXMI DEVI VS.MOHAMMED TABBAR reported in 2008(2) CTC 621, higher multiplier can be taken to offset the lower interest granted. Therefore, as against 17 Multiplier, the appropriate Multiplier can be taken as 13. The pecuniary loss, therefore will be Rs.48,000-Rs.16,000=Rs.32,000×13= Rs.4,16,000/-. The mother will be entitled to Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- to father for loss of love and affection on the death of the son. A sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2500/- for transport expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate is granted as it was omitted by the Tribunal. Since no appeal has been filed by the claimant, the interest at 6% awarded by the Tribunal stands confirmed.
13. In the result,
(i) The award stands reduced to Rs.4,16,500/- from Rs.5,49,000.
(ii) The interest at 6% is confirmed. The appellant seeks eight weeks to deposit the entire amount as per order of this Court and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same.
14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
VJY
To
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court)
Vellore
—————–
The matter is listed under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ today at the instance of the counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants.
2. Counsel for the claimants on going through the Judgment dated 7.11.2008 pointed out the clerical mistake in the total as modified by the order of this Court.
3. By the Judgment dated 7.11.2008, the award of the Tribunal was modified as follows:
Sl.No
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
Amount granted by this Court
1
Pecuniary Loss (Rs.32,000 x 17)
Rs.5,44,000/-
—–
1a.
Pecuniary Loss(Rs.32,000
x13)
——
Rs.4,16,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection to parents Rs. 5,000/- ---- 3 Loss of love and affection to mother on the death of her son ----- Rs. 20,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to father on the death of his son ------- Rs. 15,000/- 5 Funeral expenses ---- Rs. 5,000/- 6 Transport expenses ----- Rs. 2,500/- 7 Loss of Estate Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 5,49,000/- Rs.4,63,500/-
4. The total amount of compensation awarded by this Court is Rs.4,63,500/-, however by mistake, in the result portion in paragraph 13 of the Judgment, it has been mentioned as Rs.4,16,500/-. This error is purely arithmetic and clerical and therefore paragraph 13 of the Judgment of this Court dated 7.11.2008 reads as follows:
“13. In the result,
(i) The award stands reduced to Rs.4,63,500/- from Rs.5,49,000/-
(ii) The interest at 6% is confirmed. The appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the entire amount as per order of this Court and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in equal proportion.”
vjy