Meenakshi Ammal and Others vs N. Karunanidhi and Others

K. Venkataraman, J.—Claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 86 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, are the appellants in this appeal. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and the other appellants are daughters and sons of the deceased.

Case of the appellants, as put forth by them before the Tribunal, was that on 28.3.1987 when the deceased Subramanian and others were travelling in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board''s van bearing registration No. TNJ 837 and when the van reached Attinadal Seed Farm, the lorry bearing registration No. MDF 3095, driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the van on its right side, as a result of which the deceased was seriously injured. Thereafter, deceased was admitted to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, and later he was taken to Christian Medical College & Hospital, Vellore. On 7.4.1987, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the appellants filed a claim petition on the file of the Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,52,429.20, as compensation.

The Tribunal considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,27,958 with interest at 12 per cent per annum.

Having not been satisfied with the said amount, the appellants-claimants have come forward with the present appeal to this Court, on the plea that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre.

Mr. P. Mani, learned Counsel for the appellants, would strenuously contend that even though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,857 per month and Rs. 34,284 per annum and multiplied the same with 11 considering the fact that the deceased would have continued in job for 11 years since he was aged 47 years at the time of death, instead of deducting 1/3rd of such amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, has deducted 2/3rd amount, which is totally erroneous.

The above submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants appears to be reasonable.

The Tribunal should have deducted only 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and should not have deducted 2/3rd. If 2/3rd is taken into account towards contribution to family, it comes to Rs. 2,51,416. The Tribunal, even though found as per Exhs. P10 to P19 that the medical expenditure that has been incurred upon the deceased was Rs. 2,250, added that amount along with the income referred to above and granted only 1/3rd. The calculation made by the Tribunal is wrong. Instead, the Tribunal should have awarded the total sum of Rs. 2,250, which has been spent for medical expenses.

Though the appellants have not claimed any amount towards consortium and loss of love and affection, in view of several pronouncements of the Apex Court and also this Court, I deem it necessary to award a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant No. 1 towards consortium and Rs. 20,000 towards loss of love and affection to the other appellants, being daughters and sons of the deceased. Further, though no amount has been claimed under the head ''funeral expenses'', I deem it necessary to grant a sum of Rs. 2,000 under the said head. Thus the total compensation, if so calculated, comes to Rs. 2,85,666.

Mr. P. Mani, learned Counsel for the appellants further contends that the Tribunal has calculated only the income of the deceased and arrived at the loss of income for the wife and children, but it failed to take into consideration the possible amount that the deceased would have contributed for the family for certain period, even after retirement. According to the learned Counsel, the deceased after retirement would be getting some consolidated amount and also pension, which he would have spent to the family. Further, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment in K. Perumal v. Kamalabai 2004 (2) TN MAC 535, wherein a Division Bench of this Court considered the said submission and awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000 per annum and multiplied the same by 4. Relevant portion in the said judgment reads as under:

(5) ...It would have been possible for him to contribute some reasonable amount to his family for certain period even after retirement. In this way, we fix Rs. 30,000 per annum and when multiplying the same by 4, it comes to Rs. 1,20,000...

Yet another case which has been cited by the learned Counsel, is The District Collector, Pudukottai, and another Vs. Smt. Neela Bai and two others, , wherein another Division Bench of this Court took into consideration the prospects of higher salary as a relevant factor to assess the quantum of compensation. In the said case, even though the claimants did not prefer an appeal or file any cross-objection, their Lordships awarded a larger sum, considering the future prospects of higher salary, observing "we do not regard that as an insurmountable hurdle coming in the way of award of a larger sum".

Thus, in the present case also, though the appellants have not claimed any amount towards consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and future contribution to the family that will be made by the deceased after retirement, I deem it necessary to award compensation under those heads also. Considering the fact that the deceased would be contributing some amount to the family after retirement also, I fix a sum of Rs. 10,000 and multiply the same by 4, which comes to Rs. 40,000. If this amount is added to the sum of Rs. 2,85,666, which has been arrived at by me earlier, the total amount of compensation the appellants would be entitled to is Rs. 3,25,666, which is rounded to Rs. 3,26,000. Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,958. Deducting the said amount, the amount awarded in this appeal is Rs. 1,98,042. The appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the said amount, apart from the interest at 12 per cent per annum, which has been awarded by the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 1,27,958. The respondent No. 3, if not deposited the amount awarded by Tribunal with interest, is directed to deposit the said amount along with the interest, which has been awarded in this appeal, with interest within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same.

C.M.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs.