National Insurance Company Limited. vs Santhana Mariammal and Others

S. Manikumar, J.—Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.22,70,000/- with interest @6% per annum, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased, M/s.National Insurance Company Limited., Theni District, is on appeal. As the challenge is limited, there is no need to advert to the finding of the Tribunal, fixing negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle, insured with the appellant company and the consequential liability.

Material on record discloses that in the accident which occurred on 26.02.2012, husband of the 1st respondent, an Advocate aged 40 years, died. He is survived by his wife, minor son, mother, sister and brother. They made a claim in MCOP. No.60 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Periyakulam, for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. According to them, at the time of accident, he was aged about 40 years and as an Advocate, earned Rs.20,000/- per month. The appellant opposed the quantum on the grounds that in the absence of proof of income, compensation claimed, was on the higher side. They also disputed the age and the amount claimed under various heads.

Before the Claims Tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and deposed that at the time of accident, she was a Lecturer in a college. Her husband was an Advocate and earned Rs.20,000/- per month. To support the profession, she has marked Ex.P7-Enrolment Certificate and Ex.P8-Identity Card of the deceased. By referring to the decisions in Jainullakhan v. Nagabalika 1994 AIR � SC Weekly 5083, Union of India v. Dr.Reeta Bandu, New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Gangadevi, (2009 (4) ACJ 696), and Ramesh Sandhu Joshi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd, contentions have also been made, as to how monthly income of the deceased, professionals/undergoing professional courses, has to be determined.

Having regard to the above said decisions, the Claims Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. The Tribunal has noticed that respondents 4 and 5, sister and brother respectively, were unmarried at the time of accident and deducted ⅓rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken Rs.13,340/- as the multiplicand. Having regard to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 (2) TNMAC 1] (SC), and taking note of the age of the deceased, 40 years, applied ''14'' multiplier and accordingly computed the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.22,40,000/- (Rs. 13,340X12X14).

In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- for consortium, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and altogether awarded Rs.22,70,000/- with 6% interest per annum, from the date of claim till realisation.

Determination of the monthly income as Rs.20,000/- and the consequential computation of loss of contribution to the family, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, for the reason that the deceased aged 40 years is survived by his dependants wife, minor son, mother, sister and brother. At the time of accident, wife of the deceased was a Lecturer. The deceased as an Advocate was in the prime age of earning. Having regard to the avocation of the wife, one could reasonably presume that husband would have earned more or less same income, or even slightly higher.

Perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting ⅓rd towards the personal and expenses. Had it been �th as per Sarla Verma''s case, the contribution would have been more. Equally, the compensation awarded under the heads loss of consortium, and love and affection is a pittance. There is no award for transportation and damage to clothes.

The overall compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased claimants cannot be said to be on the higher side, warranting interference. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of MCOP. No.60 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Periyakulam, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already done. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 3 to 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary application before the Tribunal. At the time of filing of the claim petition in the year 2002, 2nd respondents/claimant aged 2 years. Since he is minor, the Tribunal is directed to deposit his share with proportionate accrued interest and costs, in any one of the Nationalised Banks in Fixed Deposit, proximate to the residence of the claimants, till he attains majority. The interest accruing on such deposit is permitted to be withdrawn by the 1st respondent/mother of minor once in three months, directly from the bank.

Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.3064 of 2016 is closed.