AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated
06.04.1999 made in MACT.OP No. 1138/95 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 14.02.1995 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Subhakaran was travelling as a passenger accompanying goods. When the vehicle was nearing
Sevanthampatti Vilakan, within the limits of Thuvarankuruchi Police Station near Manaparai, Trichy District, a lorry bearing Registration No. TNB
4051 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and went out of control and ran over on the five goats and turned turtle. Due to the
accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the mother, brothers, mother''s sister and grandmother of the
deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 18,20,000/- but restricted the claim to Rs. 9,00,000/-before the Tribunal. The Insurance
Company resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver or not?
b) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount payable and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the lorry driver and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation
are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 2,52,000/-
Mental agony 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 5,000/-
Funeral expenses 2,000/-
----------
Total.... 2,64,000/-
==========
Aggrieved by the order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and stated that
it is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and
the same has to be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on
record and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is therefore submitted that the order passed of the Tribunal is in accordance with
law and the same should be confirmed.
Heard the counsel. On behalf of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On
behalf of the Insurance Company, one Subramanian was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1, which is the Insurance
Policy. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the relative of the deceased. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. P.W.5 is one Arumugam,
eye witness to the accident. Given below is the list of exhibits marked on behalf of the claimants:
Ex.P1-Family Card
Ex.P2-Copy of First Information Report
Ex.P3-Copy of Post Mortem Report
Ex.P4-Copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.P5-Passport of the deceased
Ex.P6-Driving license of the deceased
Ex.P7 and P8 -Letters from the father of the deceased
Ex.P9-Transfer Certificate of the deceased
Ex.P10-Copy of passport
After considering these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The finding of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence.
The deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident. He was the eldest son of the family. He was working as Advocate Clerk helping one
Advocate by name Nambiraj. The deceased was a bachelor. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as
Advocate Clerk and also he would have earned more if he had been alive. It was also claimed that the deceased''s chance of going abroad as a
driver was very bright as his father was already in abroad. Taking into consideration of the monthly earning as well as the future prospects, the
Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses
of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been taken as the contribution of the deceased to the family and calculated the annual
income at Rs. 24,000/-. The Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned Rs. 24,000/- for a period of seven years and
accordingly determined the loss of income at Rs. 1,68,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 7). Further, the Tribunal held that the deceased would have certainly
earned more in future, if he had been alive and that he would have contributed at least Rs. 1,000/- per month to the family. Accordingly the
Tribunal calculated the annual income at Rs. 12,000/- (Rs.1,000/- x 12) and after adopting the multiplier of 7, arrived at the loss of income to the
family at Rs. 84,000/-. Accordingly the Tribunal determined the total loss of income at Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- + Rs. 84,000/-). Counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in adopting the multiplier method. Taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to fix the monthly net income of the deceased as Rs.
1,500/-. Taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, i.e. 40 years, the correct multiplier that should be adopted is 12. If 12
multiplier is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 12). There is no serious dispute by the counsel appearing
for the claimants. It is to be noted that no amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is deducted on the ground that the net monthly
income has been fixed at Rs. 1,500/-. Accordingly the loss of income is modified from Rs. 2,52,000/- to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards mental agony is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.
5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which I feel is very low and meagre. Taking into consideration of the mother and brothers of the
deceased, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- under this head. Accordingly, the amount
awarded towards loss of love and affection at Rs. 5,000/- is modified to Rs. 10,000/-. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-
towards funeral expenses, which I feel is very low and meagre. It would be appropriate and reasonable to award a further sum of Rs. 3,000/-
under this head. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards funeral expenses at Rs. 2,000/- is modified to Rs. 5,000/-. The details of the modified
compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 2,16,000/-
Mental agony 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 10,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
----------
Total.... 2,36,000/-
==========
Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 2,36,000/- as against the compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive. After taking into consideration the fall of
interest rate over the years, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the same to 9% p.a.
It is stated that the Insurance Company had already deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the
claimants 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if
any, already withdrawn. The second appellant / Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper
application.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. No costs.