AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 14,15,280/- for the death of Chandrakasan in the road traffic
accident on 20.06.2001, the insured - Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and the insurer - Oriental Insurance Company have filed this appeal.
The deceased Chandrakasan was working as Operator Grade II B in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. The brief facts are that on
20.06.2001 at about 8.45 hours, when the deceased Chandrakasan was travelling as a pillion rider on the TVS 50 bearing Registration No. TN
31 T 4140 along with one Raju from Mantharakuppam to Neyveli Township, near Thandavankuppam, the Fire Service Lorry belonging to the first
appellant bearing Registration No. TCF 2106 driven in a rash and negligent manner came behind and hit against the TVS 50. In the accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in N.L.C. Hospital, Neyveli and thereafter, he was referred
to Apollo Hospital, Chennai. But on the way to hospital, he died and the postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Panruti. A criminal
case was registered in Crime No. 152 of 2001 on the file of Neyveli Thermal Police Station against lorry driver for the offence Under Sections
279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. The deceased was working as Grade II B Operator in Mines-II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and earning a
sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The deceased was also an income tax assessee. After the death of Chandrakasan, the family of the deceased is
deprived of his contribution to the family. The wife and sons of the deceased have filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P. No. 474 of 2001, claiming
compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Denying the rash and negligent driving of the Fire Service lorry and also raising objections to the quantum of
compensation, the second appellantinsurance company has filed the counter.
To substantiate the case, the first claimant/wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. The Manager of Personnel Department in Neyveli
Lignite Corporation was examined as P.W.2 and rider of TVS 50 was examined as P.W.3. On the side of claimants, Exs.P1 to P11 were
marked. On the side of respondents, Exs.R1 and R2 were marked and no oral evidence was adduced.
Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Fire Service lorry of the first appellant-Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and held that the insured-Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and the
insurer-Oriental Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 14,15,280/- as under:
Loss of dependency.. Rs.11,85,280.00
Loss of consortium.. Rs. 15,000.00
Loss of love and affection..Rs. 15,000.00
(Rs.5,000/- x 3)
Loss of future prospects.. Rs. 2,00,000.00
_________________________
Total.. Rs.14,15,280.00
_________________________
Based upon the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs. 9,260/-. Pointing out that the deceased was aged 40
years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16 and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, the Tribunal
has calculated the total pecuniary loss at Rs. 11,85,280/- (Rs.1,11,120/- x 16 x 1/3 = Rs. 11,85,280/-). Towards loss of future prospects, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- and after awarding Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- each for loss of love and affection to
claimants 1 to 3 totalling Rs. 15,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,15,280/-.
Mr. R. Sivakumar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in arriving at the conclusion that the accident was due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Fire Service lorry. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned
the negligence on the part of the rider of TVS 50 also and the Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability upon the appellants.
To prove the negligence, the claimants have examined Raji (P.W.3), who was riding the TVS 50 bearing Registration No. TN 31 T 4140. In his
evidence, P.W.3 has stated that the Fire Service lorry bearing Registration No. TCF 2106 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the TVS 50. Based upon the complaint lodged, a criminal case was also registered in Crime No. 152 of 2001 on the file of Neyveli
Thermal Police Station Under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. As seen from Ex.P5, the judgment in C.C. No. 15 of 2002, the lorry driver
has admitted the offence and paid fine. The admission of guilt by the lorry driver and the conviction is a strong piece of evidence indicating that the
accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Even though the second appellant - insurance company has taken a plea that
the rider of TVS 50 (P.W.3) has also contributed to the negligence, the insurance company has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence
adduced by the claimants. In the light of such facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced, we are of the view that the Tribunal
rightly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Fire Service lorry driver. The coverage of policy of the said lorry with
the second appellant - insurance company is not in dispute. The Tribunal rightly held that the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and the second
appellant - insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased Chandrakasan was working as Operator Grade II B in Neyveli Lignite Corporation
Limited. Ex.P7 is the identity card issued by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited which shows that the deceased was working as Operator Grade
III C Mine II. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that her husband was getting around Rs. 13,000/- per month and that he was getting promotion
once in five years. P.W.1 has further stated that her husband was also getting incentive of Rs. 2,500/- once in three months. P.W.1 has also stated
that had Chandrakasan been alive, he would have earned more salary i.e. he would have earned Rs. 25,000/- at the time of his retirement.
To prove the income of the deceased, P.W.2, Manager of Personnel Department in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited was examined. In his
evidence, P.W.2 has stated that the deceased was working as Operator Grade II B and that he was getting salary of Rs. 8,260/- per month and
also other allowance of Rs. 1,000/-. P.W.2 has further stated that Chandrakasan would have continued in service till he attained the age of 60
years and that he had further 20 years of service. P.W.2 has also stated that had the deceased been alive, he would have continued in service for
another 20 years and he would have earned more than Rs. 12,000/- per month.
By consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is evident that the deceased was working as Operator Grade II B and was drawing salary of
Rs. 8,260/- per month and other allowance Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income at R.9,260/-. While
calculating the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2, the deceased would be getting promotion once in five years and that he would have continued in service for 20 years. P.W.2 has asserted
that had Chandrakasan been alive and continued in service, he would have been earning not less than Rs. 12,000/- per month. As per the decision
in K.K. Janardhanam Vs. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited, and in Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. 2009 AIR
SCW 6999, the Court/Tribunal has to take into account the future prospects while calculating the monthly income of the deceased. In the instant
case, instead of taking into account the future prospects and thereafter calculating the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has separately
calculated the future prospects at Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned Counsel for the appellants raised strong objection for awarding of Rs. 2,00,000/- under
the separate head ""Future Prospects"". Of course, there cannot be award of compensation under the separate head ""Future Prospects"". But as seen
from the evidence and as we pointed out earlier, had the deceased been alive he would have continued in service for another 20 years and he
would have earned not less than Rs. 12,000/- per month. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.
2,00,000/- for future prospects.
The Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs. 9,260/-, which the deceased was earning (salary Rs. 8,260/- plus Rs. 1,000/- allowance)
and calculated the annual income at Rs. 1,11,120/-. As seen from Ex.P10 service register of CH the date of birth was only 15.05.1961. On the
date of accident i.e. on 20.06.2001, the deceased was aged 40 years. As per the Second Schedule, for the age group of 35-40, the proper
multiplier to be adopted is 16. As the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly adopted
the multiplier of 16 and we maintain the same. Taking the annual income at Rs. 1,11,120/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses
of the deceased, the Tribunal has calculated Rs. 11,85,280/- for pecuniary loss/loss of contribution. As the Tribunal has not taken into account the
future prospects in calculating the monthly income, we also confirm the award of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- lakhs under the separate head
loss of future prospects"".
Insofar as the conventional damages, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- to the first claimant for loss of consortium. Towards loss of love
and affection, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each to claimants 1 to 3). The conventional damages awarded under the head
loss of consortium"" and ""loss of love and affection"" is quite reasonable and the same is maintained. Sofar as the interest, the Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claimants have lost their sole bread winner who was aged 40 years. The first claimant/wife of the
deceased was aged 31 years at the time when the deceased died in the accident. Though, normally, we award interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum, in the facts and circumstances of the case, at this distant point of time, we are not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest at 9%
awarded by the Tribunal.
In the result, the quantum of compensation of Rs. 14,15,280/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 372 of 2003 is confirmed and the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
It was stated before us that as per the order dated 08.08.2005 made in C.M.P. No. 12874 of 2005 in C.M.A. No. 2419 of 2005, the
second appellant - insurance company has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. It was also stated that claimants
1 to 3 have withdrawn 50% of the compensation amount payable to them. Claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation
amount payable to them along with accrued interest.
Advocate''s fee is fixed at Rs. 22,528