AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased in the road accident that took place on 31.01.2006. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased and the second and third appellants are the sons of the deceased. The deceased was employed as Divisional Engineer in B.S.N.L at Karaikudi. He was in receipt of a sum of Rs. 28,469/-, at the time of accident. He was 56 years old at that time. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No. 574 of 2006, claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai. The Tribunal passed an award, dated 18.12.2006, granting Rs. 7,80,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest and costs. The appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation to further sum of Rs. 10 lakhs.
Though notice was served on the respondents, they did not choose to appear before this Court and contest the matter and both the respondents remained absent. The appeal is taken up for final disposal in their absence. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no dispute over the monthly earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal held that as per Ex.P11, the deceased was getting Rs. 28,469/- as monthly gross salary. However his net salary was Rs. 17,557/-. The Tribunal committed error in taking the net salary for computing the compensation. Here again, it is submitted that after deducting one third amount towards personal expenses, the Tribunal worked out the monthly loss of dependency to Rs. 11,705/-. However, Rs. 8000/- was taken as the monthly loss of dependency. The reason for taking Rs. 8000/- was that the deceased had only four years of service and thereafter, he could reach the age of superannuation. According to him, it could not be a valid reason to take Rs. 8000/- as loss of monthly dependency. He further submits that as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Indira Srivastava and Ors. reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 166 (SC), the gross salary has to be taken for computing compensation.
It is further submitted that only deduction that could be permissible is statutory liability, i.e., Income Tax and not other deductions such as Provident Fund, etc as those amounts would be paid back to the concerned employees. It is submitted that one month wage could be deducted towards Income Tax. Thereafter, one third amount could be deducted towards personal expenses.
It is submitted that after retirement, the monthly loss of dependency would be taken as 50% of the monthly wages that he received at the time of death. From the said amount, one third amount could be deducted towards personal expenses.
The learned Counsel further submits that as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC),''9'' is the proper multiplier if the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of death. The Tribunal committed error in taking ''8'' as multiplier.
I am in entire agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants.
The Tribunal committed error in taking the net salary for computing compensation. There is no dispute that the deceased was in receipt of Rs. 28,469/- as monthly salary at the time of death. The salary of the deceased for the month of January 2006 is Rs. 28,469/- and it could be rounded to Rs. 28,000/- and the same could be taken for the purpose of calculation. The annual earnings could be Rs. 28,000x12 : Rs. 3,36,000/-. After providing statutory deduction towards income tax, the annual earnings workout to Rs. 3,36,000-28,000 : Rs.3,08,000/-. He could have served upto 60 years, had he not met with the accident. Therefore the loss of income works out to Rs. 3,08,000/x4x2/3, after making one third deduction towards personal expenses. This comes to Rs. 8,21,333/-.
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma''s case referred to above, the proper multiplier is ''9'' for the age group of 56-60 and therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellants is correct in his submission that for the balance five years, the loss of monthly earnings would be fixed at 50% of the salary which he received at the time of death. Hence, it works out to Rs. 14,000/-. Thus the loss of income to the family for five years after his retirement works out to Rs. 14,000x12x5x2/3, after providing one third deduction towards personal expenses. The same works out to Rs. 5,60,000/-. Thus the total loss of income to the family comes to Rs. 8,21,333+5,60,000/- : Rs. 13,81,333/-.
While the appellants are entitled to Rs. 13,81,333/- towards loss of income, the Tribunal awarded only 7,68,000/-.
There is no dispute regarding the amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded under other heads. Hence the second respondent is directed to deposit Rs. 13,81,333/- - Rs. 7,68,000/- : 6,13,333/- along with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, to the credit M.C.O.P. No. 574 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.