C. Jeyarani vs C. Thandabalan

Mrs. S. Vimala, J.—In respect of death of an advocate clerk by name Chockalingam, the wife aged 34, sons aged 9 and 14, mother aged 68 as legal representatives have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation and the details are furnished hereunder;-

Loss of dependency

Rs.2,08,000

Funeral Expenses

Rs.5,000

Loss to estate

Rs.2,500

Loss of Love and affection

Rs.30,000

Loss of Consortium

Rs.10,000

Total

Rs.2,55,500

On the side of the claimants, Ex.P8 document has been filed. It is the certificate issued by the Advocate Kasamuthu certifying that the Advocate Clerk was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- as monthly salary. Apart from that his income would be roughly Rs.10,000/- per month from other sources including payment by the clients. This certificate has been disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that as per the registration certificate, the clerk has registered himself under the Advocate by name R.Thiyagarajan. As Ex.P8 has been issued by some other advocate, the Tribunal was not inclined to believe it. This part of the reasoning cannot be accepted. To begin with a clerk he might have registered himself under a particular advocate. Later on, he may shift himself from the office of that advocate and he might have been working as advocate clerk under some other counsel. It does not mean that he did not work under the advocate Kasamuthu. Even if the Tribunal entertains a doubt regarding Ex.P8, it would have got it cleared by raising relevant questions by invoking power under Section 165 of Evidence Act and that has not been done. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that Ex.P8 is unworthy of acceptance cannot be accepted. 3. The Tribunal was not willing to rely upon the decision reported in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi v. D. Yasothai and ors., 2011 (2) TNMAC 761 on the ground that it only relates to a Government Servant and therefore, the principle enunciated in that decision cannot be applied to an advocate clerk. It is not as if the Government Servant alone will get the future prospective increase in the earning. 4. Exploding dockets everywhere remain the main challenge for judiciary. With increase in population and increase in awareness, litigations are multiplying. With globalisation, nature and varieties of litigations are also burgeoning. Then, naturally the Advocate clerks will be utilised in a better manner and therefore, the income of the advocate clerks will correspondingly increase. Even otherwise, the future prospects/increase in the income to categories other than the Government Servants category is also recognised in the decision reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.). Therefore, relying upon that decision, the future prospective increase in the income of the Advocate clerk are also taken into consideration. 5. Relying upon Ex.P8, the monthly income has been fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month and ?th is deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, the monthly dependency is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The age of the deceased is 45 and therefore, the proper multiplier is 14. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.3000 X 12 X 14). Awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15, 000/- each to the petitioners 2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection, the total amount has to be arrived at Rs.5,84,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the insurance company contended that loss to estate awarded at Rs.2,500/- is unsustainable. This contention is upheld and the amount awarded at Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate is set aside. Liability has not been fixed against R4 and the appeal is dismissed against R4. Thus the compensation awarded is Rs.5,84,000/- (Rupees five lakhs eighty four thousand only). 7. The second respondent insurance company shall deposit the enhanced award amount of compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited. On such deposit being made except the minor claimants rest of the claimants will be entitled to withdraw their share as per the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimants shall be deposited in a nationalised bank till the minors attain majority. The first appellant/guardian is entitled to withdraw interest once in three months directly from the bank. On receipt of the award amount, the claimants shall pay necessary court fee for the enhanced amount. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. C.M.A. Allowed - No Costs - M.P. Closed.