BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.1790 of 2000 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. through its Managing Director, Madurai. .. Appellant/ 1st Respondent (Cause Title accepted vide order dated 02.11.2000 in C.M.P.No.15980 of 2000) Vs 1.Rajammal 2.Minor Irulappan 3.Minor Pechiyammal 4.Minor Murugan 5.Minor Eswari 6.Minor Iyyanar 7.Pechiyammal ... Respondents/Petitioners 8.Chithran ... 2nd Respondent/8th Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2000 passed in M.C.O.P.No.355 of 1996 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur. !For Appellant ... Mr.D.Sivaraman for Mr.G.Munirathnam ^For Respondents ... Mr.Pon Senthil Kumaran for R.1 to R.6 Mr.S.Jawahar for R.8 :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and Decree dated
15.02.2000 passed in M.C.O.P.No.355 of 1996 by the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur.
2. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 15.02.2000,
to a tune of Rs.3,04,200/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Four Thousand and Two Hundred
only) on the following sub-heads:
(i)For Loss of Income – Rs.2,59,200.00
(ii)For Loss of Consortium – Rs. 10,000.00
(iii)For Loss of Love
and Affection – Rs. 25,000.00
(iv) For Loss of Love and
affection to P.7 and R.2 – Rs. 5,000.00
(v) For Funeral Expenses – Rs. 5,000.00
—————-
Total – Rs.3,04,200.00
—————-
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that multiplier 18
chosen for assessing the compensation relating to the death of an individual
aged 35 years is on the higher side. Accordingly, he prays for reducing the
award.
5. The point for determination is to whether the Tribunal has arrived at a
just compensation?
The Point:
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the grounds
of appeal would submit that relating to the death of a person aged 35 years, the
multiplier cannot be 18 by any standard.
7. The learned Counsel for the claimants would contend that the wife and
the five children along with the parents of the deceased are the claimants and
the matter may be viewed leniently.
8. Taking a cue from the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, if the
matter is analysed, the multiplier 17 is contemplated for the age group between
30 and 35 years. Here, the multiplier 18 is applied. I am fully aware of the
fact that the Second Schedule to the Act, need not be followed in all cases.
But, here taking into consideration the fact that the deceased at the age of 35
years died leaving behind his wife and the five minor children, the multiplier
17 would be absolute necessary for the calculation of just compensation which
would be a real soccur to the dependants.
9. I am of the considered opinion that instead of multiplier 18, the
multiplier 17 could be chosen and accordingly, the compensation under the head
‘loss of income’ would be Rs.2,44,800/- (Rs.1,200/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.2,44,800/-)
[Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Four Thousand and Eight Hundred only]. The compensation
awarded under the other heads need not be interfered with. Accordingly, the
following formula emerges:
(i)For Loss of Income – Rs.2,44,800.00
(ii)For Loss of Consortium – Rs. 10,000.00
(iii)For Loss of Love
and Affection – Rs. 25,000.00
(iv) For Loss of Love and
affection to P.7 and R.2 – Rs. 5,000.00
(v) For Funeral Expenses – Rs. 5,000.00
—————-
Total – Rs.2,89,800.00
—————-
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, reducing
the award of the Tribunal from Rs.3,04,800/- to Rs.2,89,800/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Eighty Nine Thousand and Eight Hunred only). The interest awarded at the rate
of 12% is reduced to 9% taking into consideration the prevailing rate of
interest. No costs.
rsb
To
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur.