AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Mathivanan, J.—Challenging the award of Rs. 5,10,000/-, dated03.07.2008 and made in M.C.O.P. No. 613 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Court), Tiruchirappalli, the second Respondent Insurance Company has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal.
The facts, which giving rise to the memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal may be summarised as follows:
That on 09.11.2004, at about 01.15 p.m. the deceased A. Anand was violently hit by the lorry bearing registrationNo.TN45 B4748, when he was proceeding along with a pillion rider in his Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No. TN45D6864 at Senthaneerpuram over bridge down slope, on Trichy-Chennai main road and as a result of which the deceased as well as the pillion rider were thrown out of the motorcycle and sustained multiple grievous fatal injuries on his vital parts. Soon after the occurrence, he was removed to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Trichy, wherein he had succumbed to injuries. A criminal case to that effect was registered in Crime No. 372 of 2004 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. as against the driver of the lorry alleging that he had driven the vehicle coupled with rashness and negligence. Hence, the Respondents 1 to 3herein being the parents and minor sister of the deceased had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 613 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Court), Tiruchirappalli.
The first Respondent being the owner of the lorry had not resisted the claim of the claimants. On the other hand, the Appellant Insurance Company, who is the second Respondent therein had resisted the claim on the following grounds:
i. The driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular kind of vehicle at the time of occurrence.
ii. The accident was taken place on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased himself and not on the part of the driver of the lorry.
iii. The deceased himself was depending upon the claimants 1 and 2 and hence there is no pecuniary loss to the family.
In order to establish their respective cases, both the appellant and the respondents went for trial. Two witnesses which includes the first respondent/first claimant were examined and during the course of their examination Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the other hand neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting second Respondent, who is the Appellant herein.
On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the motor accident claims Tribunal had rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance Company and ultimately found that the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/-towards the compensation under the following heads:
i.
The Tribunal had determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,750/-,after giving 1/3rd deduction, the 2/3rdremainder is Rs. 2,500/-. The Tribunal had selected the multiplier ''16'' for arriving at the loss of income of the family and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/-under the head of loss of income
ii.
Loss of love and
affection
Rs.20,000/-
iii.
Funeral expenses
Rs. 5,000/-
iv.
Transportation
Rs. 5,000/-
The second Respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay this amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Challenging the quantum of award, the second Respondent Insurance Company has approached this Court byway of this appeal.
Heard both sides.
It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that as per the Respondents 1to 3/claimants, the age of the deceased at the time of occurrence was 20 years and he was studying in Bachelor Decree i.e. B.Sc., and he was also taking private stationed thereby earned a sum of Rs. 4,000/-per men sum. In this connection, the learned Counsel would submit that No. legal proof was forthcoming on behalf of the Respondents/claimants 1 to 3. He would further submit that this appeal is filed questioning the quantum of award.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has also submitted that the award of the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of love and affection could be confirmed. Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and another amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation are not disputed. He has disputed only the monthly income of Rs. 3,750/-, which has been determined by the Tribunal for arriving at the quantum. He would submit further that as decided in Sarala Verma''s case a sum of Rs. 3,000/-could betaken into consideration towards the monthly income of the deceased. He would further submit that since the deceased was a bachelor instead of giving 1/3rd deduction towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased 50% of deduction could be given. Further, he would submit that since the age of the mother was 38 years at the time of occurrence, the correct multiplier would be ''15'' and that could also be considered. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had awarded a just compensation and that it need not be interfered with. She has also submitted that the Respondents 1 to 3/claimants have produced Exs.P4 to P9 to prove the educational qualification of the deceased and that the award of the Tribunal might be confirmed. She would further submit that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 4,000/-out of private tuition and hence, the monthly income determined by the Tribunal might be enhanced and determined at Rs. 4,000/- in stead of Rs. 3,750/-.
In order to substantiate her arguments, she has placed reliance upon the decision in Mohammed Ameeruddinand Anr. v. United India Insurance Company, Ltd., and Anr., reported in 2011 (1) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.). In this case, a cleaner of Tanker had died when the vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident. At the time of his death he was aged about 20 years. His parents had filed aclaim petition alleging that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 2,500/-per men sum plus a daily batta at Rs. 50/-.The Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/-per men sum. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, the annual income was determined at Rs. 32,000/-. The mother of the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of occurrence and there fore the multiplier ''16'' was selected to arrive at the loss of income of the family. Accordingly, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation at Rs. 5,10,000/-. But, awarded asum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On appeal, the High Court had excluded the daily allowance of Rs. 50/-and applied the multiplier of ''13'' and reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,60,000/-.
On an appeal, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that there was No. evidence on record that daily allowance of Rs. 50/-was not paid to deceased or even that he was noton work every day. Ultimately, the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal was right in assessing the income at Rs. 4,000/-per men sum and that proper multiplier would be''15'' and as such the compensation under the head of loss of earning was determined at Rs. 4,50,000/-.
On coming to the instant case on hand, admittedly, the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of occurrence. In fourth column of claim petition, the claimants have stated the deceased was studying in B.Sc., Chemistry third year. Ex.P6 is the statement of marks of the deceased pertaining to B.Sc., Degree examination. However, there is No. admissible evidence to show that he was taking tuition privately and earned a sum of Rs. 4,000/-per men sum. However, as decided in Sarala Verma''s case, the minimum monthly income of the deceased can be determined at Rs. 3,000/-per men sum. At the time of occurrence, the age of the mother of the deceased viz. the first Respondent/first claimant was 38 years and therefore''15'' is the appropriate multiplier.
On the basis of the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-,the annual income would be Rs. 36,000/-(Rs. 3,000/-X 12).Since he was a bachelor, 50% can be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and the remaining 50% is Rs. 18,000/-. On application of multiplier system of ''15'',the loss of income to the family would be Rs. 2,70,000/-(Rs. 18,000/-X 15). Apart from this amount, this Courtconsider that the Respondents 1 to 3/claimants being the mother, father and minor sister can be allowed to get a sum of Rs. 40,000/-towards loss of love and affection viz. first and second Respondents are each entitled to Rs. 15,000/-, whereas the third Respondent being the minor is entitled to Rs. 10,000/-. Besides this, the Respondents1 to 3/claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transportation as granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Respondents 1 to 3/claimants are entitled The Appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay this amount to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award of Rs. 5,10,000/-passed by the to get the compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- as detailed hereunder:
i.
For loss of income
to the family
Rs.2,70,000/-
ii.
Loss of love and
affection
Rs. 40,000/-
iii.
Funeral expenses
Rs. 5,000/-
iv.
Transportation
Rs. 5,000/-
The appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay this amount to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition.
In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award of Rs.5,10,000/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Court), Tiruchirappalli, dated 03.07.2008 and made in M.C.O.P. No. 613 of 2005, has been reduced to Rs. 3,20,000/-. of which the first Respondent being the mother of the deceased is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-and the second Respondent being the father of the deceased is also entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-and the third Respondent being the minor sister is entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Further, the Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition within a period of one month. On such deposit, the first and second Respondents are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. The share of the third minor Respondent shall be invested in any one of the nationalised bank till she attains majority. The second Respondent being the father is entitled to receive the interest accrued thereon once in three months. No costs.