P. Anandan and Another vs Pharamond Dit D' Costa Antonie and Others

M.Y. Eqbal, C.J.—This appeal filed by the appellants, viz., the owner and insurer of the vehicle, is directed against the award dated 13.6.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Pondicherry in M.C.O.P. No. 591 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 64,27,000 for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants-respondents, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim petition u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,00,000 for the death of Jeannine Hugetta Madaline Vuillod, who is the wife of the claimant No. 1 and the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The respondents-claimants'' case was that on 5.9.2000 the claimant No. 1 and the deceased were travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. PY 01-B 3551, which was going to Chennai Airport from Pondicherry in the East Coast Road. When the vehicle, which was a taxi, was just opposite to Shasun Guest House at Pillaichavadi, a lorry bearing registration No. TN 25-4239 came from the opposite direction towards Pondicherry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit against the tourist taxi, as a result of which the driver and the passengers sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the tourist taxi and the wife of the claimant No. 1 died due to the said accident. The further case of the claimants is that a motor cycle bearing registration No. PY 01-D 4197 came behind the tourist taxi and hit the rear side of the car, in which the motorcyclist was thrown out and sustained injuries. After the said accident a criminal case was registered against the lorry driver under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, Indian Penal Code in Cr. No. 279/2000 by the Auroville Police Station. The claimants'' case is that the deceased, viz., the wife of the claimant No. 1, was employed as an ''Attache'' in French Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia. She was earning Rs. 2,00,000 per month and was shortlisted for promotion to a higher post in which she would have got Rs. 5,00,000 per month.

The respondent No. 2, viz., the insurer of the car, denied the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 4, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore, which is the insurer of the lorry, contested the claim on various grounds and stated that the amount claimed is exorbitant and disproportionate.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated two issues for its consideration, viz.,

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicles bearing registration Nos. PY 01-B 3551, TN 25-4239 and PY 01-4197 in a rash and negligent manner?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay the same?

While deciding point No. 1 the Tribunal held that the owner and the insurer of the lorry, who are the appellants herein, are liable to pay the compensation amount.

While deciding point No. 2 the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased, who was 55 years of age, monthly salary which she was getting and also considered Exhs. A5, A6 and A16, which are pay certificates issued by the French Consulate, and found that the deceased was getting gross salary of 9,329.47 franc, expatriation allowance at 32,291.50 franc and other allowances. Deceased was working as an ''Attache'' in the French Embassy at Jakarta, Indonesia. Converting the said amount into Indian currency the Tribunal finally took the monthly salary at Rs. 2,00,000 and assessed the compensation amount on that basis.

Mr. Veeraraghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, mainly assailed the award on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to the learned senior counsel the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in assessing the compensation by taking expatriation allowance as salary, which should not have been included. Learned senior counsel submitted that the expatriation allowance was given to the deceased as she was in Indonesia where the cost of living is very high and, therefore, it need not be taken into account while calculating the amount of compensation. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to Exh. A5, which is the salary sheet, and Exh. A16, salary certificate.

We have perused the salary sheet, which shows that the deceased was getting 9.329.47 franc as gross salary, 32,291,50 franc towards expatriation allowance, 1,069 franc as exceptional indemnity. The total amount which the deceased was getting was 42,689.97 franc.

PW 1, the husband of the deceased, produced the documents including salary sheets and other documents, and deposed that deceased was working as an ''Attache'' in French Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia and was having service for more than 10 years with the French Government. He has very categorically deposed that in Indian currency she was getting Rs. 2,00,000 per month.

The main ground taken by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is that while assessing compensation the expatriation allowance cannot be taken into consideration. The submission made by the learned senior counsel has no leg to stand on. Admittedly, the deceased was appointed as ''Attache'' by the French Embassy and was working in Jakarta, Indonesia. ''Attache'' is a person, who serves as a Technical Advisor to an Embassy. The words ''expatriate person'' mean a person who lives permanently in a foreign country (as per Black''s Law Dictionary). ''Expatriate'' means to withdraw oneself from residence or to leave one''s home country to live elsewhere. The words ''Expatriate Staff mean a person whose superannuation/provident/pension fund is maintained outside the country by his principal/employer (as per Advance Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn. by P. Ramanatha Iyer). It is, therefore, clear that a person who works as an ''Attache'' always remains outside his or her country and salaries are fixed accordingly. ''Expatriation allowances'' are being paid to meet the expenses for livelihood in the country where they work. In that view of the matter, the ''expatriation allowance'' shall always be treated as a part of salary for the person who lives and serves in a foreign country.

As noted above, PW 1, the husband of the deceased, categorically deposed in his evidence about the monthly earnings of the deceased. But there is no cross-examination from the side of the owner of the lorry or the insurer of the lorry on the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to differ with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.