AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 537 of 1996, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased, who died in the motor accident on 09.12.1995. The second appellant is the mother of the deceased and the third and fourth respondents are the minor children, born to the first appellant, through the deceased. The deceased was employed as Telephone Operator in the Telephones Department. At the time of the death, the deceased was paid Rs. 3123/- as monthly salary. All the above facts are not in dispute.
The Tribunal passed an award, dated 08.02.2001 in M.C.O.P. No. 537 of 1996, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,19,000/-as compensation. The present appeal is filed against the said award.
Heard the Mr.A. Prasanna Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. C. Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
The Tribunal held that had the deceased been in employment, he could have received Rs. 7500/-, and that the salary of the first appellant is Rs. 7000/- and thus only Rs. 500/- is the loss suffered by the family per month. The Tribunal had taken Rs. 500/- as the loss of dependency to the appellants, since, the first appellant was given compassionate appointment in Telephones Department and by taking Rs. 500/-p.m. as loss of dependency, the annual loss of income was worked out to Rs. 6000/- and by applying multiplier of ''18'', the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- as compensation for loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of love and affection to the other appellants and also awarded a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 1,19,000/- is awarded under the following heads:
for loss of income - Rs. 1,08,000/- 2. for loss of consortium to the first appellant - Rs. 5,000/- 3. for loss of love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4 - Rs. 5,000/- 4. for funeral expenses - Rs. 1,000/- -------------- total - Rs.1,19,000/- -------------
The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% along with costs.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal was not correct in determining the loss of dependency by taking into account the compassionate appointment granted to the first appellant. It is submitted that the first appellant earns her wages by rendering her service. The salary is paid by the Telephone Department to the first appellant, after extracting work from the first appellant. The learned Counsel further submits that whatever earnings made by the first appellant could not be taken into account for determining compensation payable by the second respondent/Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the matter is squarely covered by various decisions of this Court and a decision of the Judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. He relies on the following decisions:
(i) A Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Dhanapati v. State of U.P reported in 1992 (1) TAC 351.
(ii) a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Vasanthi alias Anantha Lakshmi and Others, .
(iii) A decision of this Court in Kanagamma and Sowmya represented by petitioner''s mother and next friend G. Kanagamma Vs. Revathi and National Insurance Company Ltd., .
I perused those judgements. Those judgments squarely cover this case. Para 7 of the judgment reported in 1992 (1) TAC 351 of the Allahabad High Court is extracted hereunder:
About the question of longevity in the family of the deceased, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Smt. Dhanpati, appellant, who stated that the father of Chhotey Lal deceased lived upto the age of 80 years. The mother of the deceased at the time of the accident was about 65 years of age, who also received a compensation on account of her being dependant of the deceased. The question about the longevity was decided by the Tribunal and the probable age up to which the deceased would have lived cannot be held to be less than 60 years. Smt. Dhanpati, widow of Chhotey Lal received insurance money of Rs. 12,368.78 p. after the death of her husband. The amount of insurance money received by the appellant has no nexus in the matter of compensation payable to her. Admittedly, Chhotey Lal, deceased husband of the appellant was working in the Hydel Department and after his death in the accident, appellant Smt. Dhanpati has been given a job in the Hydel Department under the Harness Rules and she at the time of the decision of the claims petition was getting a salary of Rs. 612/- per month. While calculating the compensation payable to Smt. Dhanpati appellant and her minor daughter, the Tribunal illegally observed that since Smt. Dhanpati was given a job in place of her deceased husband in Hydel Department, she cannot be said to have suffered any financial loss because of the death and on that account, she would not be entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal has committed a patently illegality in not awarding compensation to the appellant on account of her husband''s death in the accident, only because she has been given a job in the Hydel Department and the present emoluments she was receiving was more than the amount of the salary of the deceased. This cannot be a ground to refuse the payment of compensation to the wife that she has been given the job under Harness Rules. Had the husband not died the appellant would have continued to do other work besides the domestic work etc. and on account of the employment given to her, she has to devote herself to the service of the State and she is being paid the salary for the work done? Since she works in the Hydel Department, some other person has to do the other work which she used to do previously. The ground for refusing to pay any compensation to the wife is liable to be set aside and the amount of compensation shall be payable to her according to multiplier system. Admittedly, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 421.75 p. per month, it is estimated that the deceased spent Rs. 50 for her mother and out of the balance amount, he contributed towards the family about Rs.200 and the rest he spent on himself. Admittedly, at the time of the accident, he was about 34 years and he would have lived for next 26 years. In view of the decision reported in Smt. Krishna Kumari Gupta and Others Vs. Gur Buxeesh Singh and Others, , I consider that a multiple of 16would be just and proper compensation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, applying multiplier of 16 should be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 38,400 plus 10% with interest from the date of the judgment of the Court below.
Para 5 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Vasanthi alias Anantha Lakshmi and Others, is extracted hereunder:
Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the first claimant has been given employment on compassionate grounds and her salary should be deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants. There is no merit in this contention. No doubt, employment may be given on compassionate grounds but it depends upon the qualification of the person concerned. Further, it is not an amount paid ex gratia or as compensation for the death of the deceased. Work is extracted from the first claimant, for that the amount is paid to her. She earns her salary by working therefor. Hence, that amount cannot form part of the compensation to be given to the claimants. Secondly, the appellants have not admitted their liability to pay compensation and it is not as if they gave employment to the first claimant as a matter of compensation for the death of her husband. Hence, there is no substance in the argument that the salary of the first claimant from her employment shall be deducted from the compensation. This view has been taken by Gujarat High Court in Arunaben v. Mehmoodbhai Imamali Kaji, 1983 ACJ 409 (Gujarat). That has been followed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaina Ram 1989 ACJ 13 (HP). Similarview has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudershan Puri v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation 1983 ACJ 489 (Rajasthan) and the Delhi High Court in Nirmala Sharma v. Raja Ram 1982 ACJ 143 (Delhi). Hence, we reject this contention.
A learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision in Kanagamma and Sowmya represented by petitioner''s mother and next friend G. Kanagamma Vs. Revathi and National Insurance Company Ltd., has followed the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Vasanthi alias Anantha Lakshmi and Others, . A reading of those judgments make it clear that the Tribunal had committed an error in taking into account the compassionate appointment given by the Telephones Department to the first appellant, for determining the compensation Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal towards loss of income is set aside.
It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 34 years. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 3123/- as monthly salary at the time of accident. The deceased was an employee of the Central Government. As per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 997 the future prospects at the rate of half of the salary last drawn at the time of accident has to be added towards loss of dependency. Hence I fix the loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 4500/- p.m. and after deducting one third amount towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3000/- p.m. and the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 3000 x 12 = Rs. 36,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case reported in 2009(4) MLJ 997, the proper multiplier is ''16'' and hence Rs. 36,000/- x 16 = Rs.5,76,000/- is the total loss of income. While awarding a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium to the first appellant/wife, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- to all the other appellants 2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection, due to the death of the deceased. In my view, the other appellants are also entitled each Rs. 5000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. Hence, the following is the compensation that is payable to the appellants:
for loss of income : Rs. 5,76,000/- 2. for loss of consortium : Rs. 5,000/- to the first appellant 3. for loss of love and : Rs. 15,000/- affection to the appellants 2 to 4 4. for funeral expenses : Rs. 1,000/- --------------- total : Rs. 5,97,000/- ---------------
It is submitted that the second respondent/Insurance Company paid the amount as ordered by the Tribunal and did not choose to file any appeal. Hence, after adjusting the said amount, the second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance enhanced award amount of Rs. 4,78,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 537 of 1996, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tuticorin, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.