AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Vimala, J.—N.Ganesh, the only son of the parents V.S.Nandakumar (petitioner 1), since died and V.S.Chitra (Petitioner-2), an young,
promising B.E.(Mechanical Engineering) Graduate died in an accident that took place on 11.10.2008. Alleging that parents have lost their only
hope, they claimed a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation. During the pendency of the petition, the father died and the sister of the deceased,
Kamatchi (Petitioner-3) has been impleaded as per order in I.A.212/2010 dated 22.01.2010. Challenging the quantum of compensation as
exorbitant and disproportionate, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
Brief facts :-
On 11.10.2008, at about 5.50 p.m. the deceased Ganesh was riding in his pulsar motor-cycle bearing registration No. TN-07-AR-5612 and at
that time the Santro car bearing registration. No TN-22-AC-5959, which as driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction
and hit against the deceased. The deceased sustained head injuries and he was admitted at Apollo Hospital, Chennai and later on he died
13.10.2008.
2.1. The deceased Ganesh was a bright and brilliant student with good academic record. He was on training for a period of three years in Guindy
Machine tools Limited, Chennai earning a sum of Rs. 7,289/- per month, apart from earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards private consultancy.
Claiming that there is loss of dependency and loss of support, the claimants filed the petition for compensation.
The Claim was resisted by the Insurance Company on the pleadings that
a. the manner of accident is denied;
b. the negligence on the part of the driver of the Santro Car is denied;
c. age, income and occupation of the deceased is disputed;
d. quantum of compensation is exorbitant.
Before the Claims Tribunal, the mother has been examined as P.W.1 and eye-witness has been examined P.W.2. Ex.P1 to P.17 has been
marked; No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the respondents.
The Tribunal has given a finding that
a. accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Santro car and therefore in view of the
existence of valid coverage of policy, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the claim made in the petition.
b. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded the compensation under the following break-up details:-
S.No. Head under which compensation is awarded Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency
� Annual income � Rs.2,40,000/�
� Personal expenses Rs. 80,000/-
� Annual dependancyRs.1,60,000 /-
� Multiplier adopted �8� 12,80,000/-
Compensation towards loss of
dependency
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss to estate 10,000/-
Loss of love and affection 50,000/-
Total 13,45,000/-
The Insurance company challenges the quantum of compensation on the following contentions:
a. When the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 7289/- as per Ex.P.14, the Tribunal is incorrect in taking the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs. 20,000/- per month and therefore the calculation adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the total loss of dependency has to be modified.
b. The reasoning adopted for awarding Rs. 13,45,000/- as total compensation is against the pleadings, facts and evidence.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal 9. grossly erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/-
especially when the salary certificate produced by the claimant shows that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 7,289/-.
It is true that, it is mentioned in the Salary Certificate of the deceased, that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,289/- per month. But, the
Tribunal has considered the educational qualification of the deceased and as well as the future prospects available to him as an Engineering
Graduate and fixed the monthly income at Rs. 20,000/-. In the evidence of the mother, it has been stated that the deceased son was earning Rs.
15,000/- per month as engineering consultant, apart from earning a sum of Rs. 7,289/-, as trainee. But there is no proof to show that the deceased
was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from private consultancy. Yet, perusal of the documents filed on the side of the claimants would go to show that
assessment of the monthly income at Rs. 20,000/- is not without basis. The deceased had all along been a meritorious student, which would be
evident from the following documents:
Exhibits Description
(Ex.P.6) Mark Sheet (V 526/600
Semester in B.E.(Mechanical
Engineering)
(Ex.P.7) Diploma Certificate Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (First
Class with Honours) � April 2003
(Ex.P.8) 13.06.2007 Ranipet Engineering College (Mark Sheet)
� First class with distinction � 80%
(Ex.P.10) Provisional Certificate B.E. -First class with distinction
(Ex.P.11) Certificate Pro/E in EduCADD Training Services
Private Limited, Vellore
(Ex.P.12) Training completion report Completion of one year apprenticeship
training from 21.07.2003 to 20.07.2004 in
QAD Assessment of performance -
Excellent
(Ex.P.13) Project Certificate issued by On Localization of GETZ Doors � Level
Hyundai of commitment involvement and attitude is
good
(Ex.P.14) Appointment order (Training for a Guindy Machine tools Limited, Chennai
period of Three years) Apprentice Trainee in the Grade 800-150-
6650-plus other allowances (Total
emolument at the minimum scale is
It is relevant to point out that as per Ex.P13, (on the completion of the project which the deceased was doing with Hyundai,) the observation
regarding his personality was that his involvement, commitment and attitude was good. The observation is extracted hereunder:
(Ex.P.13) Project Certificate On Localization of GETZ
Doors �
issued by Hyundai
Level of commitment
involvement and attitude is
good
8.1. This observation is amply justified when it is brought on record that the parents came forward for organ donation once the doctors declared
the brain death of the deceased. The relevant certificate issued, (certifying that the deceased was admitted to
C.C.U. on 13th October 2008 for Organ Transplantation) by the Superintendent, of Apollo Hospitals is reproduced for easy reference:
(Ex.P.4) Certificate issued by The family consented for Cadaver
Medical Organ donation. With their
Superintendent, informed consent, the following
Apollo Hospitals. organs are harvested, eyes, heart, lungs, liver
and kidneys for
transplantation purposes.
Unless, the deceased himself had the vision of doing social services, the parents would not have thought of donating the organ of the deceased.
Whether it is the decision of the parents or the vision of the deceased yet, as it is a meaningful and purpose oriented organ donation, i.e., ""giving
lives while losing life"" which benevolent act of the parents even while they were under extreme grief is a relevant aspect to be taken of by this
Court.
8.2. Now, the justifiability of the contention that the monthly income must be taken only at Rs. 7,289/- has to be considered. As already discussed,
the deceased had been a brilliant student. What the deceased had received towards monthly emoluments was only during the period of training. It
is evident from the perusal of Ex.P.14 that the deceased had been on training for a period of three yeaRs. If the stipend / emolument is Rs. 7,000/-
during training period, one can very well come to a conclusion that the salary after completion of training, can be very well at Rs. 20,000/- per
month.
8.3. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the deceased was not in a position to get any employment fetching more income than the
income of Rs. 7,289/- and that on that score, the future income should not be quantified at Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the qualification of the
deceased Ganesh, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 16,500/- per month.
This contention cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
a. As already discussed, the income of Rs. 7,289/- was meant only for the training period. After the training period, definitely the monthly income
would have been triple or not less than double
b. It is a matter of common knowledge that many Industries / Corporations provide employment initially, only in the name of training so as to avoid
payment of other emoluments
c.The future income would definitely be more / increasing because the trend is towards increasing the salary as long as the cost of living also
increases. Moreover, due to promotions or due to employment in other places/industries, he would have got a better salary. Having regard to the
proved performance during studentship, special qualification acquired and special attitude possessed definitely the deceased would have been in
flying colours in future, earning more. At the time when parents were to reap the benefit, they lost their son and all the support they would have get
from their son.
8.4. The next contention is that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and as the deceased had been a
bachelor only 1/2 ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses. This contention also cannot be accepted in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the case. The deceased had joined apprentice-trainee and immediately i.e., within one month, he had met with this accident. At
that point of time, when the monthly income was roughly Rs. 7,000/- one cannot expect him to spend Rs. 3,500/- on himself. Moreover, during the
pendency of the petition, the father of the deceased had been reported dead. Had the father been alive, he would take up the responsibility of
maintaining the mother. In that event, it is enough if the deceased spend less on mother. In as much as the father is no more, then the deceased is
expected to spend more on the mother. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased, in view of the special circumstances of this case.
8.5. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses i.e.Rs. 5,500/- the monthly contribution to the family is fixed at Rs. 11,000/- and the annual loss of
dependency is calculated at Rs. 1,32,000/- (Rs. 11,00/- x 12 = Rs. 1,32,000/- ). Even though in the Claim Petition, the age of the mother is stated
as ""51"" years, as per Ex.P3-legal heirship certificate, it is seen that the age of the mother is ""56 "" yeaRs. For the age group 55-60 years, the proper
multiplier to be adopted is ''8'' which the Tribunal has correctly adopted and the same is maintained. Thus adopting multiplier ""8"", the total loss of
dependency is calculated at Rs. 10,56,000/- (Rs. 1,32,000/- x 8 = Rs. 10,56,000/- ).
With regard to conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 50,000/-
for loss of love and affection and the same are maintained.
In modification, the total compensation of Rs. 13,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 11,21,000/-, as under:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.10,56,000.00
(Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 8)
Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000.00
Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00
Loss of love and Rs. 50,000.00
affection
Total Rs.11,21,000.00
In the result, the total compensation of Rs. 13,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 115 of 2009 dated 29.10.2010 on the file of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore is reduced to Rs. 11,21,000/- and the appeal is allowed partly. No costs.
It was stated before us that as per the order in M.P. No. 1 of 2001 dated 26.04.2011, Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire
compensation amount along with accrued interest. The 2nd Respondent-Claimant is entitled to withdraw the modified compensation along with
proportionate accrued interest, immediately after the receipt of copy of this judgment. Appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the
excess amount deposited along with proportionate accrued interest. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.