AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2005, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1239 of 2004,
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
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
16.12.2005, to a tune of Rs. 3,66,500/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) on the following sub-heads:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs. 3,46,500.00
(ii) For Loss of Consortium - Rs. 5,000.00
(iii) For Loss of Love and
affection - Rs. 10,000.00
(iv) For Funeral Expenses and
Transport Charges - Rs. 5,000.00
---------------
Total - Rs. 3,66,500.00
---------------
The pith and marrow of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the memorandum of appeal would run thus:
The Tribunal assumed as though the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- without any document but purely on conjectures and
surmises. As such the compensation has to be reduced.
The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ''just compensation''?
During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked and R.W.1 was examined and
Ex.R.1 was marked.
Point: The learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the Tribunal instead of estimating the compensation simply
guesstimated the whole thing, as it had merely done guess work in arriving at the monthly income of Rs. 3,500/-. I could see considerable force in
the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, because the Honourable Apex Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, highlighted the fact that the Tribunal cannot simply assume and presume the monthly income and there should be
some basis for the same. An excerpt from the said decision would run thus:
Secondly, the deceased was employed in a limited company. It was necessary for the claimants to establish what was the monthly income and
what was the dependency on the basis of which the compensation could be adjudged as payable. Should not any Tribunal trained in law ask the
claimants to produce evidence in support of the monthly salary or income earned by the deceased from his employer company? Is there anything in
the Motor Vehicles Act which stands in the way of the Tribunal asking for the best evidence, acceptable evidence? We think not. Here again, the
position that the Motor Vehicles Act vis-a-vis claim for compensation arising out of an accident is a beneficent piece of legislation, cannot lead a
Tribunal trained in law to forget all basic principles of establishing liability and establishing the quantum of compensation payable. The Tribunal, in
this case, has chosen to merely go by the oral evidence of the widow when without any difficulty the claimants could have got the employer
Company to produce the relevant documents to show the income that was being derived by the deceased from his employment.
As such in the absence of any clinching evidence the income of the deceased could only be taken Rs. 3,000/- per month. At this juncture the
decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Limited v. Mayilathal and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) TN MAC 337 could
fruitfully cited. If accordingly worked out the annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards the expenditure which the
deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the age of the
deceased as 52, the multiplier 11 chosen by the Tribunal is correct, which requires no interference. If accordingly, worked out the loss of income
comes to Rs. 24,000/- x 11 = Rs. 2,64,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Sixtyfour Thousand only).
Towards loss of consortium a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded which has to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands
only). Towards loss of love and affection a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded which could be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousands only) as there are three children to the deceased. Towards Funeral Expenses and Transportation charges a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was
awarded, which has to be modified. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards Funeral Expenses and a sum of Rs. 3,000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand only) towards Transport Expenses could be awarded. As such the compensation awarded is modified as under:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs. 2,64,000.00
(ii) For Loss of Consortium - Rs. 15,000.00
(iii) For Loss of Love and
affection - Rs. 15,000.00
(iv) For Funeral Expenses - Rs. 5,000.00
(v) For Transport Charges - Rs. 3,000.00
---------------
Total - Rs. 3,02,000.00
---------------
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 3,66,500/-(Rupees Three Lakhs
and Sixty Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) to Rs. 3,02,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Two Thousand only). In other aspects the award
shall hold good. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.