BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27/11/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.1421 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 Ms.United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, 7A, West Veli Street, Madurai. ... Appellant Vs 1.V.Renuka Devi 2.Minor V.Nivetha 3.Minor V.Santhoshkumar (Minor R2 and R3 represented through their mother R1) 4.A.K.Balakrishnan 5.M/s.Thirupathi Venkatachalapathy Lorry Service through its Manager, Door No.251, Railway Feeder Road, Sattur Post, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 08.09.2006 passed in MCOP.No.977 of 2004 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai. !For Appellant ... Mr.J.S.Murali ^For RR1 to R4 ... Mr.K.Bhaskaran :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated
08.09.2006 passed in MCOP.No.977 of 2004 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,
Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the notice to R5 is dispensed
with as he remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 08.09.2006 awarded compensation to a
tune of Rs.7,46,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and forty thousand only) on the
following sub-heads:
For loss of income – Rs.6,48,000/-
For loss of consortium
(first petitioner wife) – Rs. 50,000/-
For loss of love and affection
(first petitioner wife) – Rs. 20,000/-
For loss of love and affection
(petitioners 2 and 3) – Rs. 20,000/-
For loss of love and affection
(petitioner No.4) – Rs. 5,000/-
For funeral expenses – Rs. 3,000/-
————-
Total – Rs.7,46,000/-
————-
4. The gist and kernel of the grounds of appeal would run thus:
The Tribunal in page No.9 of its Judgment erroneously calculated some
method and arrived at the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees
four thousand and five hundred only); the multiplier 18 chosen by the Tribunal
is wrong; even under the other sub heads loss of consortium, awarding a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was on the higher side and accordingly
the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company prays for modification
of the quantum of the award.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal arrived at
‘just compensation’?
6. On point:
The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company by placing
reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his arguments to the effect that
the monthly income of the deceased could at the most be taken Rs.3000/- (Rupees
three thousand only) and out of that one third (1/3) has to be deducted and the
monthly dependency should be arrived at Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and
that too the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would focus his
arguments on the point that before the Tribunal there was no authentic salary
certificate to show that what was the actual income of the deceased and mere
marking of salary certificate allegedly issued by the Managing Director of the
P.R.P. Granites, Melur cannot be taken as sufficient evidence.
7. By way of torpedoing the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/
claimants would develop his arguments to the effect that before the Tribunal
Ex.P7, the salary certificate was marked and it demonstrated that the deceased
was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month. Such fact
is in commensurate with the present trend of salary being obtained by persons
like the deceased. No doubt, mere marking of the salary certificate would not
amount to proof. However, the Tribunal held that as on the date of his death,
it could be taken that he was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand
only) per month, the supervisor working in a granite industry would have earned
a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month and there need not be
any further dilation on that. However, the future prospects should be taken
into account.
8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company,
the Post Mortem Certificate would reveal that the deceased was 31 years old at
the time of his death, but the Tribunal took it as 28. Even upholding that he
died at the age of 31 as revealed by the Post Mortem Certificate, he had long
number of years to work and support his family and hence, in such a case to some
extent subject to uncertainties of future, his monthly income could be taken as
Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and that would meet the ends of justice.
Out of that one third (1/3) has to be deducted on a flat rate basis irrespective
of the fact whether the deceased lead the life of a bohemian or that of a
sparten. Taking a cue from the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles
Act, the multiplier 17 could be chosen as the deceased died at the age of 31.
Hence, the compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ is re-fixed and arrived
at Rs.5,44,000/- [Rs.4000 X 12 X 17 X 2/3= Rs.5,44,000/-] (Rupees five Lakhs
and forty four Thousand only).
9. Under the caption loss of consortium a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) was awarded; taking into account the young age of the widow; even
then it is non-pecuniary damage and at a flat rate a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
twenty thousand only) could be awarded and that would serve the purpose and it
is done so normally in other cases.
10. Towards loss of love and affection for each minor children Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) could be awarded and towards father a sum of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) could be awarded and as such under that
caption broadly Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) could be awarded.
11. Towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand
only) was awarded is the appropriate compensation and for transport expenses
Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) would be sufficient. Accordingly, the
compensation is modified as under:
For loss of income – Rs.5,44,000/-
For loss of consortium
(first petitioner wife) – Rs. 20,000/-
For loss of love and
affection – Rs. 25,000/-
For funeral expenses – Rs. 3,000/-
For transport expenses – Rs. 2,000/-
————-
Total – Rs.5,94,000/-
————-
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.7,46,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and
forty thousand only) to Rs.5,94,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and ninety four
thousand only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%. Proportionately
there will be variation in the allotments to each of the claimants depending
upon the variation in the total compensation awarded herein. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
the Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.II,
Madurai.