AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—The HDFC General insurance Company is the appellant in the above appeal challenging the award and decree dated
17.10.2012 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 2162 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (XV Additional Judge), Chennai. It is a
case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 9.5.2009. One Mahendran, aged about 25 years, a bachelor, said to be a shop
owner died in the road accident. His mother aged 44 years and father aged 50 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,10,000/-
and restricted to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1, one Mr. Kandasamy, the eye witness as P.W. 2 and one Mr. C.K.
Sunil, the chit fund agent as P.W. 3. Exs. P-1 to P-13 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex. P-1 is the copy of FIR,
Ex. P-2 is the copy of rough sketch,
Ex. P-3 is the copy of charge sheet,
Ex. P-4 is the copy of death report,
Ex. P-5 is the copy of M.V. Report,
Ex. P-6 is the copy of postmortem certificate,
Ex. P-7 is the medical bills,
Ex. P-8 is the legal heir certificate,
Ex. P-9 is the photocopy of family ration card,
Ex. P-10 is the photocopy of chit savings book,
Ex. P-11 is the photocopy of chit savings book,
Ex. P-12 is the photocopy of sale deed,
Ex. P-13 is the authorisation letter to PW 3.
One Jeyaraj was examined as R.W. 1. Exs. R-1 and R-2 were marked on the side of the appellant insurance company, the details of which are
as follows:-
Ex. R-1 is the letter sent to the insured and driver
Ex. R-2 is the reply letter sent by insured with enclosures.
The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle who is responsible for the accident and the death and consequential
liability fixed on the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed and such finding is confirmed. The appeal is
filed mainly challenging the quantum of compensation.
After discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record, and after declining to accept Exs. P-10 and P-11, the Tribunal was of the view
that the deceased was said to be a tea and snacks shop owner and can earn a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. After deducting 1/2 towards
personal living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency of the parents was fixed at Rs. 7,500/- per month and Rs. 90,000/- per annum.
Based on the legal heirs certificate, the age of the father was fixed at 55 years and the mother at 47 years. Based on the age of the parents of the
deceased, the Tribunal adopted multiplier ""11"" and fixed the total loss of dependency at Rs. 9,90,000/- (Rs. 7,500/- x 12 x 11 = Rs. 9,90,000/-).
In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with
7.5% interest as follows:-
In appeal, it is pointed out that the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 15,000/- per month. The deceased said to have been running a tea
and snacks shop. As such, the fixation of income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month is excessive and therefore, the compensation has to
be reduced. It is also contended that the compensation granted towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.
We are not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal for the following reasons:
(1) Considering the age of the deceased at 25 years and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. and Others, , the future prospects can be pegged at 30%. Para 14 of the decision reads as follows:-
We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma''s case that
where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the
actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed
salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across
the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of
living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected
people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under
the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising
prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private
sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the
Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although,
the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in
the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental
enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can
take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category
periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching
cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases
of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the
observations in the last three lines, of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma''s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will
be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income
over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of
compensation.
There is no objection to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month that is to say at Rs. 330/- per day. In view of the above
decision if 30% is added, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs. 13,000/- per month and if 50% towards personal living expenses is
deducted, the loss of dependency will be Rs. 6,500/- per month.
(2) It is pointed out by the respondent''s counsel that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal based on the age of the dependants is not proper. He
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, . The Apex
Court in the above decision held that the age of the deceased should be taken and not the age of the dependents for adopting multiplier. Para 17 of
the decision reads as follows:-
The selection of Multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of
dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of
compensation.
(3) Taking note of the age of the deceased at 25 years, the proper multiplier would be ""18"" and the loss of dependency would be Rs. 14,04,000/-
(Rs. 6,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 14,04,000/-).
(4) We therefore, feel that the award passed by the Tribunal though not clear in terms of the quantum of income or the multiplier, the quantum of
compensation arrived for the dependents appears to be justified, if the above said parameters are taken into consideration.
(5) The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs. 1,12,891/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection
which could have been on the higher side. Considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and very young in age, and in view of the factors
as stated above, we found that the award passed by the Tribunal in totality of this case is just compensation and does not require any reduction or
modification.
There is no dispute with regard to interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% and the same is confirmed.
No other points are canvassed by the appellant in this appeal. Finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.