BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31/01/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.444 of 2000 and C.M.P.(MD) No.3550 of 2000 1.M/s. Ramesh Industries, E.95/96, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakkudi, Tiruchy - 22 2.National Insurance Company Ltd., "Vigneswara Buildings". 2/7, Pudukkottai Road, Tiruchy - 20 .. Appellants Vs. 1.M.Mohamed Abbas 2.M.Afthab Abbas 3.M.Mohamed Aslam 4.M.Mohamed Nowshad 5.M.Mohamed Taj 6.M.Khader Basha .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated 05.03.1999, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1437 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub Court), Tiruchirapalli. !For Appellants ... Mr.S.Ramachandran ^For Respondents ... No appearance :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
05.03.1999, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1437 of 1996, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub Court), Tiruchirapalli.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Despite printing the
name of the counsel for the respondents no one appeared.
3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 05.03.1999,
to a tune of Rs.5,86,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and Eightysix Thousand only) on the
following sub-heads:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs.5,76,000.00 (ii) For Love and Affection - Rs. 10,000.00 -------------- Total - Rs.5,86,000.00 --------------
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant
insurance company filed this appeal on the following main ground inter-alia
thus:
The main claimants in the claim petition are the parents of the deceased
Mohammed Riaz, who died at the age 27 in unmarried state. The other claimants,
viz. respondents 3 to 5 herein are only the major younger brothers, who were not
entitled to substantive compensation also. However, the Tribunal invoked the
multiplier 16 and arrived at the total compensation wrongly as against the well
settled proposition laid down by the Honourable Apex court.
5. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 was examined and
Exs.P.1 to 4 was marked and on the side of the respondent R.W.1 was examined and
Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked.
6. Point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded is
just and proper?
7.Point: The learned counsel for the appellant would reiterate in his
arguments the grounds as set out in the memorandum of appeal to the effect that
at the relevant time of death of Mohammed Riaz in the motor accident, he was 27
years old and was working as Inspector of Customs Department, Trichy; the
parents of the deceased were aged 64 and 58 and the multiplier at the most could
be 8, even by taking into account the age of the mother alone. I could see
considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants, in view of the fact that the deceased died in unmarried state
leaving his parents and major younger brothers. The main claimants are parents
and the other claimants could claim at the most compensation for loss of love
and affection and nothing more. While awarding compensation in favour of the
parents the multiplier has to be chosen carefully taking into account the age of
the parents, but on the other hand if the claimants are wife and children then
the multiplier should necessarily be on the higher side. It is a trite,
proposition that in view of the Apex Court’s judgment reported in (2007) 3 SCC
538 (New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v. Kalpana) whenever a Bachelor dies, the
average age of the appellants has to be taken and the principle is that either
the age of the deceased or the claimants should be taken whichever is higher.
An excerpt from the above said decision would run thus:
“7. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case
and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of
the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the
claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if
invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the
multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should
also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-
up over the period for which the dependency is excepted to last.”
But for the untimely death of the unmarried son, at the most even only for four
or five years the deceased would have provided his substantive income to his
parents and thereafter monitory support towards his parents would have got
reduced due to the likelihood of the deceased getting married and setting up a
family of his own. It is clear that the ages of the father and mother were 64
and 58 respectively at the time of the death of their son, even taking the
mother’s age as the criterion for choosing the multiplier, the second schedule
appended to Motor Vehicles Act would at the most suggest the multiplier 8.
8. The Tribunal has taken his monthly salary as Rs.4,300/- and out of that
the Tribunal took Rs.3,000/- as dependency. There is no necessity also to give
notional increase in income of the deceased as the parents would not live long
to get the future benefits from their son. As such the annual income of the
deceased comes to Rs.4,300/- x 12 = Rs.51,600/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount
towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining
himself had he been alive, the annual dependency comes to Rs.34,400/-. If
accordingly worked out the loss of income comes to Rs.34,400/- x 8 =
Rs.2,75,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventyfive Thousand and Two Hundred only).
9. Towards loss of income the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which
could be increased to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) at rate of
Rs.10,000/- for each the parents. Towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand only) could be awarded taking into account the rates
prevailing at that time. Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) could be awarded
towards Transport Expenses. The learned counsel for the appellants would draw
the attention of this Court to the fact that the claimants 3 to 5 are well
educated and also employed, as such cummulatively a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
loss of love and affection could be awarded and nothing more. Accordingly,
this point is answered in favour of the appellants and the compensation awarded
is modified as under:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs.2,75,200.00 (ii) For Transport Expenses - Rs. 1,000.00 (ii) For Funeral Expenses - Rs. 3,000.00 (iv) For Love and Affection of parents - Rs. 20,000.00 (v) For Loss Love and Affection of brothers - Rs. 20,000.00 -------------- Total - Rs.3,19,200.00 --------------
The same could be rounded of to Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty
Thousand only). The interest awarded by the Tribunal shall also be reduced to
9% p.a.taking into account the rate of interest which prevailed at the time of
passing the award by the Tribunal.
10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.5,86,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and
Eightysix Thousand only) to Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty
Thousand only). The rate of interest is reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a.
Proportionately there will be variation in the allotments to each of the
claimants depending upon the variation in the total compensation awarded.
Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.3550 of 2000 is closed. No costs.
sj
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(III Additional Subordinate Judge),
Thiruchirapalli.