AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the
deceased Thangavel in a road traffic accident on 12.09.1998 wife, children and mother of the deceased have filed this Appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:
On 12.9.1998 - 7.30p.m. the deceased Thangavel was riding his bi-cycle from west to east near Chennimalai Police Station on the left side of the
road. At that time, the lorry bearing registration No. KA-01-A 2057 coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the
deceased and the deceased was thrown off and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 45
years old and he was running a tea stall and he was owning 10 hand looms. He was also doing agriculture by owning 5 acres of land by doing
personal cultivation. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, Claimants have filed Petition claiming
compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
Opposing the Claim, the third Respondent-Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the deceased who was riding his bi-cycle attempted
to cross the road without looking for on going vehicles from both sides and dashed against the rear side of the lorry and sustained injuries and later
succumbed to the injuries. The alleged accident was due to rashness and negligence of the deceased and therefore, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company has also disputed the age and income of the deceased and also dependency of the
Claimants.
Before the Tribunal, the Second Claimant was examined as P.W. 1. Eye witness was examined as P.W. 3. The Manager of Ammapalayam Co-
operative Weavers Society was examined as P.W. 2. Exs. P.1 to P.12 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and
pointing out the admission of guilt in Criminal case by the lorry driver, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving
of the lorry driver. The Tribunal has negatived the plea of contributory negligence alleged as against the deceased. Taking the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month and adopting multiplier 13, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/-.
The learned Counsel Mr. N. Manokaran, appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the deceased was running hand looms and tea shop
and also doing agriculture and while so, the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income at Rs. 1,500/- which is very much on the lower side. It was
further submitted that the Claimant had examined P.W. 2, the Manager of Ammapalaym Co-operative Weavers Society and marked Ex. P. 12
and while so, the Tribunal has brushed aside the same and awarded very low compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/-. The learned Counsel for the
Appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation.
The learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, appearing for the third Respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same need not be enhanced.
It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to how the accident had occurred, who is responsible for the accident and who is liable
to pay the compensation, it is for the reason the Tribunal has recorded the findings in favour of the Claimant. Further, these findings are not under
challenge. Only the quantum of compensation is in dispute.
In her evidence, P.W. 1-2nd Claimant has stated that her husband was running a tea stall in Ammapalayam and he was also having 10 hand
looms. P.W. 1 has further stated that the deceased was also doing agriculture. To substantiate that the deceased owned agricultural lands, the
Claimants have produced Ex. P. 10 Sale Deed which would show that the deceased and her brother Chenniappan jointly owned about 6 acres of
lands along with Well for irrigation. The Claimants have also produced Ex. P. 9 series kist receipts to show that the deceased was doing agriculture
and that he was paying kist for the agricultural lands.
The Claimants have also examined P.W. 2 the Manager of Ammapalayam Co-operative Weavers Society through whom Ex. P. 12 was
marked. In his evidence, P.W. 2 has stated that the deceased Thangavel used to take thread materials from the society for weaving bed-sheets and
that he was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month. To that effect Ammapalayam Co-operative Weavers Society had also produced Ex. P. 12. To
show that the deceased was running tea stall, the Claimants have produced Ex. P. 11 licence fee paid by the deceased for running the tea stall in
Ammapalayam.
While the deceased was doing multi-faceted activities and said to be earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income
at a very low amount of Rs. 1,500/-. The annual dependency need to be determined in terms of loss sustained by the legal representatives of the
deceased. Courts and Tribunals should ensure that the compensation awarded should be real and substantial and not abysmally a low amount. The
Courts and Tribunal have a duty to weigh various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which should be just. What would be ''just
compensation'' would depend upon particular facts and circumstances of each case. In my considered view the evidence adduced by the
Claimants to show that the deceased was earning considerably good income was not analysed in its proper perspective by the Tribunal. The
monthly income taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,500/- per month is very much on the lower side.
Admittedly, agricultural lands continue to remain with the family. The normal rule of deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases
where agricultural income is the source. The lands possessed by the deceased still remains with the Claimants as his legal representatives. In State
of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, Supreme Court has held as under:
It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal''s decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as
to what was the income. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of
land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains with
the Claimants as his legal heirs. There is, however, a possibility that the Claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture.
Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant
circumstances have to be considered.
The same principle was reiterated in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, as under:
Normal rule about the deprivation of income is directly not applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source of deceased''s or
injured''s income. In that case other circumstances have to be considered.
In her evidence P. W. 1 has stated that even after the death of the deceased Thangavel the Claimants continued to run the tea stall. Having
regard to the evidence of P.W. 1 and other factors and circumstances of the case, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 2,250/- per
month. Deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses i.e., Rs. 750/-, the deceased would have contributed Rs. 1,500/- per month to the family and
the annual loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 18,000/-.
At the time of accident the deceased was aged 45 years. For the age group of 45-50 years, as per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, the
multiplier to be adopted is ''13''. Adopting multiplier 13, the annual loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 2,34,000/-. The Tribunal has not
chosen to award any amount for loss of consortium. The Second Claimant has lost her husband at the age of 42. Towards loss of consortium
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. For loss of love and affection to the Claimants 1, 3 and 4, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. For
funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- and the same is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The total compensation amount of Rs.
1,63,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,64,000/- as noted below:
Sl. Head Amount awarded Amount awarded Enhancement
No. by the Tribunal by this Court in Rupees
in Rupees in Rupees
Loss of dependency 1,56,000/- 2,34,000/- 78,000/-
(1500x12x13)
Funeral expenses 2,000/- 5,000/- 3,000/-
Loss of consortium --- 10,000/- 10,000/-
Loss of love and 5,000/- 15,000/- 10,000/-
Total 1,63,000/- 2,64,000/- 1,01,000/-
Since the Claimants have restricted their Claim for Rs. 1,00,000/- in this Appeal, the amount is rounded to Rs. 2,63,000/-. The enhanced
compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with accrued interest is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro-rata basis.
In the result,
The quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 660 of 1999 dated 18. 12. 2001 on the file of the
Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode is enhanced to Rs. 2,63,000/- and this C.M.A. is allowed.
The compensation amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
The enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit.
The compensation amount is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro-rata basis.
The third Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with accrued interest within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
On such deposit, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation payable to them along with accrued interest on filing necessary
application before the Tribunal.
There is no order as to costs in this Appeal.