AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 9.4.2001, made in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Karur.
The appellants in the present appeal were the first and the third respondents, in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2000, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur.
This appeal has been filed on various grounds stating that the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, is contrary to law, and the weight of evidence available on record. The Tribunal had erred in granting a disproportionate amount, as compensation, to the claimants, for the fatal accident that had occurred, on 26.7.98, without following the guidelines and the norms prescribed for the awarding of such compensation. The Tribunal had failed to note that the married sisters of the deceased, who was a Bachelor, aged about 42 years, cannot be treated as his dependants. The Tribunal had failed to note that the claimants 1 to 3 were married and the fourth claimant was the elder brother of the deceased and the fifth claimant was the younger brother of the deceased, aged about 40 years. None of the claimants can be considered as the dependants of the deceased.
The appeal has also been filed on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to note that the claimants had not produced any legal heir certificate, ration card or other acceptable documents to establish the claim that the deceased was living with them and that he was taking care of the family with his income. Further, there was no evidence, either documentary or oral, available before the Tribunal, to establish the monthly income of the deceased. While so, the notional income of the deceased should have been taken only as Rs. 1500 per month, u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had also failed to note that the claimants would be entitled to claim compensation for the loss of expectation of life, only as legal heirs and they are not entitled to claim any pecuniary loss. The amount of compensation granted to the claimants by the Tribunal is excessive in nature and therefore, it is liable to be reduced, in accordance with the norms and guidelines applicable to the case.
The claimants had filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2000, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, stating that the petitioners were the brothers and sisters of the deceased, who had died in the accident that had occurred, on 26.7.98. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent and driving of the driver of a lorry, which had dashed against the bicycle, which the deceased Kolan @ Thangavel was riding. The deceased had died due to the multiple injuries caused by the accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased was in a good physical condition and he was working as a carpenter, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was contributing all his earnings to the petitioners. The petitioners are the only available class II legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners have been adversely affected due to the loss of love and affection due to the death of Kolan @ Thangavel, who was living with them. The petitioners had also been put to great pain and suffering, due to the loss of their brother. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle, which had caused the accident. The second respondent is the driver of the said vehicle and the third respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The petitioners had claimed that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-, along with the interest and costs.
The second respondent had remained exparte. The contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent had been adopted by the first respondent. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioners that, on 26.7.98, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TML-7462 had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident, due to which Kolan @ Thangavel had died, is false. It is only the deceased Kolan @ Thangavel had been riding the bicycle in a negligent manner due to which the accident had occurred. Therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The claim that the deceased was in a healthy physical condition had been denied. The claim made by the petitioners is highly excessive in nature.
Based on the claims made by the petitioners and the contentions raised on behalf of the first and the third respondents, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur, had framed the following points for consideration as follows:
Whether the accident that has happened on 26.7.98 at about 10.30 hrs in Karur Taluk near Thirumanilayur Bazaar is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent.?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation amount, and if so to what amount and from whom?
Based on the evidence available, both oral as well as documentary, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident that had occurred, on 26.7.98, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal had come to such a conclusion from the evidence of P.W.1, and the documents marked as Exs.P-1, and P-3 to P-6. Thus, the Tribunal had answered Point No. 1 in favour of the claimants.
With regard to Point No. 2 the Tribunal had held that the claimants 1 to 5 were entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 2,78,800/-, from the third respondent, who is the insurer of the vehicle, which had caused the accident. The Tribunal had found that the age of the deceased, at the time of the accident, was 42 years. He was working as a carpenter and he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month.
P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased Kolan @ Thangavel, had deposed in his evidence stating that his deceased brother, aged about 42 years was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, as a Carpenter. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident, he was living with the petitioners contributing his entire income for the welfare of the petitioners.
From the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal had concluded that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 2100/- per month. Deducting 1/3 rd of the said amount towards his personal expenses, the balance sum of Rs. 1,400/- was the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family consisting of the petitioners. Accordingly, the annual contribution of the deceased to the petitioners was Rs. 16,800/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident the age of his brother, who was the 5th petitioner in the claim petition, had been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for arriving at the multiplier. Since the age of the 5th petitioner was 40, the multiplier of 16 had been applied. Accordingly, the total amount calculated, as the compensation to be paid to the petitioners is Rs. 2,68,800/-. For the loss of love and affection a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been awarded. Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is Rs. 2,78,800/-.
The main contentions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that they are the dependants of the deceased person. Respondents 1 to 3 are said to be the sisters and the respondents 4 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased. Further, it has not been shown that they are the legal heirs of Kolan @ Thangavel, who had died due to the accident. Even though the respondents had claimed that they are the Class II heirs of the deceased person they have to prove that they are his dependants. The legal heir certificate has not been produced before the Tribunal to substantiate their claim. There is no proof of the income of the deceased, even though it has been stated that he was a carpenter earning nearly Rs. 5000/- per month. The notional income could be taken to be a maximum of Rs. 15,000/-. Deducting 1/3 of the said amount for his personal expenses, it would be Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The fixing of Rs. 2,100/- as the monthly income of the deceased is arbitrary and excessive in nature. After deducting 1/3 of the said sum, the Tribunal had taken Rs. 1400/- as the monthly income of the deceased and the calculation of the amount of compensation has been made on that basis. The appropriate multiplier that could have been used for arriving at the compensation would be 15. Further, the Tribunal had used the multiplier of 16, which is inappropriate. Since the deceased person was 42 years of age at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 15 should have been used by the Tribunal to arrive at the amount of compensation due to be paid for the death of Kolan @ Thangavel. The awarding of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum is excessive in nature. In such circumstances, only 7.5.% per annum would have been the appropriate interest that should have been awarded by the Tribunal. Further, taking the age of the younger brother of the deceased person, for applying the multiplier method, is erroneous and invalid in the eye of law. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, dated 9.4.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000, is liable to be set aside.
There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
In view of the grounds raised by the appellants in the present appeal and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, while awarding the compensation to the claimants for the death of Kolan @ Thangavel, had come to the conclusion that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and that they have been his dependants. The Tribunal had taken into account the notional income of the deceased for calculating the amount to be awarded, as compensation to the claimants. By fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,100/-, after deducting 1/3 rd of the amount, Rs. 1,400/- has been taken to be the monthly loss of income of the claimants. Further, the Tribunal had taken 16 as the multiplier, considering the age of the younger brother of the deceased, who was 40 years of age and it had come to the conclusion that the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the claimants would be Rs. 2,78,800/-, at the interest at 9% per annum. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree, dated 9.4.2001, made in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur, stands confirmed. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.