IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 29.08.2006 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN C.M.A.(NPD-S) No.485 of 1998 & C.M.P. No.4575 of 1998 1. A. Gnanaraj 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited Udagamandalam represented by its Branch Manager : Appellants Vs. 1. Pazhaniammal 2. Narayanan 3. R. Valayapathi Muthukrishnan (given up) : Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.31 of 1997 on 10.11.1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry at Karaikal. For appellants : Mr. S. Jayashankar For respondents : Mr. T. Susindran J U D G M E N T
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the owner of a car involved in an accident and the Insurance Company with which the car was insured, questioning the award dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry at Karaikal in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.31 of 1997, on the aspect of quantum of compensation.
2. In respect of death of their son Arumugam, his parents filed a Claim Petition under Section 140 and 166(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988, before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In support of their case, three witnesses were examined and twelve documents were marked. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in a nutshell, is as follows:
3. On 12.02.1997, at about 5:15 a.m., at Nagore Main Road, in front of Government ITI Hostel, when the deceased Arumugam and his co-employees were doing some electrical work, the driver of an Ambassador car bearing Regn. No.TN-59-0133, driving the car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased leading to his death on the spot. The deceased was an employee in the Electricity Department, Karaikal earning Rs.2,000/- per month and since the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the owner of the car and the Insurance Company with which the car was insured.
4. The Insurance Company contested the Claim Petition disputing the claims made by the respondents/claimants. But, in support of its case, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.
5. The Tribunal, after an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, held the car driver responsible for the accident and passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,37,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit.
6. Mr. S. Jayashankar, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded higher compensation to the respondents/claimants without considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and it has applied the multiplier of 19 without application of mind.
7. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr. T. Susindran that the award of compensation for a sum of Rs.2,37,500/- for the death of a 19-year old person, corroborated by relevant exhibits is quite reasonable and need not be interfered with.
8. Since the finding of the Tribunal in respect of negligence is not agitated before me, the appeal is narrowed down to the point of quantum of compensation alone and in that view of the matter, I am not traversing on the finding of the Tribunal in respect of negligence.
9. The fact that the deceased was employed in the Electricity Department is not disputed. Though his Salary Certificate was marked, it was not considered by the Tribunal since its author was examined. Based on the evidence of P.W.3, a co-employee who has deposed that the deceased would earn from Rs.60/- to Rs.70 per day, the Tribunal has determined the salary of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month and deducting one-third of his salary for his maintenance expenses, his contribution towards his family has been arrived at Rs.1,000/- per month, which, in my opinion, is correct. It is seen from Ex.P.9, the birth extract of the deceased that he was aged 19 at the time of accident. The proper multiplier to be applied for a person in the age group of 15-20 is 16. But, it is seen that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 19 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,28,000/-, which, in any event, is excessive as held by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others Vs. Trilok Chandra & Others reported in 1996 ACJ 831 and the relevant lines read as under:
“17. . . . According to this Table, the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule, the maximum multiplier can be upto 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas’ case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).”
10. Also, in the case of Kanhaiyalal Kataria & Others v. Mukul Chaturvedi & Others reported in (2005) 12 SCC 190, where the deceased was aged 32 years, the Apex Court enhanced the multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal to 17.
11. Based on the above rulings of the Supreme Court which go to show that a multiplier beyond 18 cannot be applied, by applying the correct multiplier of 16 for the age group of 15-20, this Court reduces the pecuniary damages to Rs.1,92,000/-.
12. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. I find no record to prove that the deceased was a married person and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of consortium and the same has to be cut off. Instead, this Courts awards a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards loss of love and affection.
13. In short, the award of compensation of Rs.2.37.500/- is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum in the following manner:
S.No.
Head
Amount (Rs.)
1
Pecuniary damages
192000
2
Loss of estate
2500
3
Loss of love and affection
3500
4
Funeral Expenses
2000
Total
200000
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and it is directed that the excess amount paid by the Insurance Company may be refunded to it. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No.4575 of 1998 is closed.
cad
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Karaikal, Pondicherry
2. The Record Keeper
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras
[PRV/7741]