AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 48 of 2006, on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Periyakulam.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Despite printing the name of the respondents no one appeared.
The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated
26.03.2007, to a tune of Rs.2,37,500/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and Thirty seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) on the following sub-heads:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs.2,25,000.00
(ii) For Transport Expenses - Rs. 500.00
(ii) For Funeral Expenses - Rs. 2,000.00
(iv) For Love and Affection - Rs. 10,000.00
--------------
Total - Rs.2,37,500.00
--------------
The nitty gritty, the gist and kernel of the grievances of the appellant as found set out in the grounds of appeal could be portrayed thus:
A boy of 10 years old met with an accident and died leaving behind the claimants as his parents, who are aged about 34 and 30 respectively and
the deceased boy was a V Standard Student at the relevant time of the accident. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,37,500/-.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant insurance company filed this appeal on the following main grounds inter-
alia thus:
The Tribunal even though has chosen the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- presumably by taking a cue from the second schedule
appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, yet it did not choose to deduct 1/3 income towards the expenditure which the deceased would have
incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive. The multiplier 15 chosen is also on the higher side.
During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to 7 were marked and there was no oral or documentary evidence
adduced on the side of the respondents.
Point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded is just and proper?
Point: The learned Counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the recent decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
(i) Kaushlya Devi v. Shrikaran Arora reported in 2007(3) T.A.C. 16 (SC) and
(ii) Unreported judgment in Appeal (Civil) No. 4725 of 2005 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Ors.) dated 08.11.2006.
would develop his arguments to the effect that the Honourable Apex Court in the 1st decision cited supra awarded only a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- relating to the death of a boy of 10 years old and under the second decision cited above the Honourable Apex Court awarded a
sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, relating to the death of a boy of 9 years old. He would also submit that even though the Honourable Apex Court in its
decision in Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan reported in 2005(1) T.A.C. 609 (S.C.) relating to the death of a boy of 13 years old awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, yet the concept relating to deduction of 1/3rd amount was not taken into consideration, however in the
subsequent decisions of the Honourable Apex Court the position is different.
At this juncture I would like to highlight as to how to construe the ratio-decidenti of a decision of the Honourable Apex Court. If the Honourable
Apex Court render a judgment on a contentious issue certainly that would constitutes ratio-decidenti, which would be binding on all the Courts
below. However in Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan reported in 2005(1) T.A.C. 609 (S.C.) the Honourable Apex Court without deciding any
specific issue relating to deduction of 1/3rd towards expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself, awarded
compensation. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, the Honourable Apex Court mandates that
such 1/3rd of the income should be deducted. Now the latest decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as highlighted supra mandate deduction of
such 1/3rd from the income of the deceased. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons I disagree with the view taken by the Tribunal that 1/3rd amount
should not be deducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive. Even though
Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation, yet the principles relating to interpretation of statues should be necessarily followed and evidence
should be demanded by the Court before awarding compensation under any sub-head. To point out one such decision I would like to refer to the
decision in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, . Hence, I am of the considered opinion that out of the
notional income 1/3rd amount has to be deducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he
been alive.
Considering the age of the claimants as 34 and 30 which are above 30 and below 35, and that there are imponderables involved in case of this
nature involving death of minor as highlighted in the decisions second cited supra, the multiplier can be accepted as such. Towards loss of love and
affection a sum of Rs.5,000/- each was awarded which could be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each. Towards funeral
expenses a sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded which could be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Towards Transport Expenses
awarding a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) could be appropriate. As such the compensation awarded is modified as under:
(i) For Loss of Income
Rs. 15,000/- x 15 x 2/3 - Rs. 1,50,000.00
(ii) For Transport Expenses - Rs. 5,000.00
(ii) For Funeral Expenses - Rs. 5,000.00
(iv) For Love and Affection - Rs. 20,000.00
--------------
Total - Rs. 1,80,000.00
--------------
The learned Counsel for the appellant would convincingly argue that the interest awarded was 9% p.a., but it should only be 7.5% p.a. in
commensurate with the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. reported in
2005 (2) TAC 297 SC and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr. reported in 2006 (1) TAC 1 (SC). Hence, the interest awarded
is reduced to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a.
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.2,37,500/-(Rupees Two Lakhs
and Thirty seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Thousand only). The rate of the interest
awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is reduced to 7.5% p.a. In other aspects the award shall hold good. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.
1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.