BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/06/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1122 of 2007 1.Sivanammal 2.Sumathi 3.Uma Maheswari 4.Minor Sivakumar .. Appellants vs 1.C.Murugesan 2.The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., North Thirumakulam Street, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai Town-625 002. ..Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 20-07-2006 passed in MCOP.No.218 of 2003 along with MCOP No.219 of 2003, 220 of 2003 and 221 of 2003, by the common judgment on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court,Ramanathapuram. !For Appellants ...Mr.K.Murugesan ^For Respondents ...No Appearance for R1 Mr.R.Srinivasan for R2 * * * * * :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award of
Rs.2,89,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand only) against the claim
Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for the death one Boominathan Servai in
the accident.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned
counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The first appellant is the widow and the appellants 2 to 4 are the
children. There is no dispute with regard to manner of accident and also
regarding the liability. The claimants are preferred this appeal against the
award for enhancement and no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
Hence, the question of considering the liability does not arise. It is only the
question of quantum only.
4.According to the claimants/appellants, the deceased Boominathan Servai
was aged about 55 years and he was doing Conch(Sangu)business and he was also
working as a Guide to the tourist in Rameswaram and he was earning about
Rs.50,000/-per month(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) which was denied by the
respondent.
5.The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence fixed the age of
deceased age as 55 as per Ex.P6, Post-Mortem Report. To substantiate their claim
that the deceased was earning about Rs.50,000/- per month, the appellants marked
as Exs.P.14 and P.16. Since, the deceased was serving as a Guide to the tourist
and also looking after Conch business, the Tribunal fixed his monthly income as
Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thosand only). It is seen from the evidence of PW.1
that the deceased Boominathan Servai was earning about Rs.100/- per day from his
conch business and Rs.100/- per day as a a guide to the tourist everyday. There
cannot be any documentary proof to show that he was earning at Rs.100/- per day
as a guide as well as from the conch business. Hence, it can be safely taken
that the Boominathan Servai would be earning at Rs.4,500/- per month.
6.Taking into consideration his avocation, the Tribunal, however, fixed
his monthly income at Rs.4,500/- per month only. From a sum of Rs.4,500/- if
1/3rd is deducted, his contribution to the family comes to is Rs.3,000/-. In
this case, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is ’11’. Taking into
consideration age of the deceased at 55 years and the age of the first appellant
as 50 years the proper multiplier would be on the higher side and the right
multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is ’11’. So, the loss of income by adopting
multiplier ’11’ would come to Rs.3,000/- per month. If the multiplier ’11’ is
adopted, the total contribution will be at a sum of Rs.3,96,000/-(Rs.3,000 x
11×12) (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only).
7.The first appellant was awrded a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand
only) towards loss of consortium which in the opinion of this Court, is very
meagre and loss of life partner cannot be compensated and cannot be calculated
in terms of money. However, in this head, this Court grants a sum of
Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and accordingly a sum of Rs.5,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Towards loss of love and affection, the appellants 2
to 4 were given a sum of Rs.5,000/- each totally Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) which is very low. Accordingly, the appellants 2 to 4 are
granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-each (Rupees Ten Thousand only)and the compensation
under that head, is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only).
Regarding funeral expenses a sum of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal is
reasonable and the same is cofirmed. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
(i) For Loss of Income Rs.3,96,000.00
(ii) For Loss of consortium
for the first appellant Rs. 20,000.00
(iii)For Loss of Love &Affection
for the appellants 2 to 4 Rs. 30,000.00
(iv) For Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000.00
—————
Total Rs. 4,51,000.00
—————
8.As far as the interest is concerned, the Tirbunal rightly awarded 7.5%
interest for the award amount and the same is accordingly confirmed.
9.Hence, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.2,89,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand only) to Rs.4,51,000/-
(Four Lakhs Fifty One thousand only) along with 7.5% interest from the date of
the appeal till the date of realization. The second respondent/Insurance
Company is hereby directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on deposit, the Tribunal is
hereby directed to pay the amount to the claimants/appellants within a period of
four weeks thereafter. No costs.
10.It is to be appreciated that Mr.R.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the
second respondent has fairly put forth the facts without any hesitation and he
is also made certain concessions to the appellants, which have to be followed by
other Bar members.
gsr
TO
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Court,
Fast Track Court,
Ramanathapuram.