AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the claimants against the award dated 28.02.2001 made in
MCOP No. 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164 165, and 155 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur.
By consent of the learned Counsel on either side, these appeals are taken up for final disposal. All these appeals arise out of a common
accident. Therefore, they are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 30.08.1998, the Appellants in CMA Nos. 939, 940, 942, 943, 944 and 945 of 1999 and the first Appellants in 941, 946 and 947 of 2001
were travelling in a van bearing Registration No. TN-57-A-3435 in the Trichy-Chennai National Highway, from South to North direction to attend
a marriage at Chennai. The van was driven by the deceased-Rajalingam. When the van reached Pottangadu in GST Road, Chennai, at about 5.00
p.m., a lorry bearing Registration No. TME-9456, belonging to the third Respondent in all these appeals, came from the opposite direction. Both
the vehicles were driven in a rash and negligent manner and there was a head-on-collision. The van was insured with the second Respondent-
Insurance Company and the lorry was insured with the fourth Respondent-Insurance Company. Due to the accident, the Appellants in CMA Nos.
939, 940, 942, 943, 944 and 945 of 1999 and the first Appellants in 941, 946 and 947 of 2001 sustained injuries, and the said driver of the van,
died on the spot. The injured as well as the claimants of the deceased-driver claimed compensation before the Tribunal. The Insurance
Companies-the second and fourth Respondents resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the accident had occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van or the lorry?
What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that, both the drivers of the vehicles are responsible for the
accident, as there was head-on-collision and fixed the liability on both the Insurance Companies at 50% each and awarded the compensation.
Aggrieved by the award amounts, all the injured as well as the claimants of the deceased-driver filed these appeals, for enhancement.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that there was negligence on the part of the
driver of the van also. She further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and it is without any basis and
justification. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal has not considered the relevant
materials and also not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance
and these are fit cases for enhancement.
Learned Counsel for the second and fourth Respondents-Insurance Companies, have submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case and awarded the compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable. It is also based on valid materials and
evidence and it is a question of fact. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to
P.W.17 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to P75 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Companies, Ex.R1-Private Investigation Report,
was marked and no witness was examined.
Ex.P1 is the First Information Report, which was lodged by one of the passenger by name Arunkumar who travelled in the van, in which it is
stated that there was head-on-collision in the middle of the road. Ex.P25-Sketch also makes it clear that the accident occurred in the middle of the
road. After considering the above evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that both the drivers of the vehicles caused the accident. It
is a question of fact and it is also based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the same is confirmed.
Now, we will take up the appeals one by one:
CMA No. 939 of 2001 (MCOP No. 156 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Pappammal was injured in the said accident. She was 45 years old at the time of accident. In her evidence it is stated that she
was running a Poultry Farm. She claimed that she was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In her evidence, it is further stated that she
sustained head injury and also grievous injuries all over the body. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Ex.P45 and P46 are the
Accident Registers. Ex.P47 are the medical bills. Ex.P58 is the Disability Certificate. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the claimant and
determined the disability at 30%. After considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 67,700/- with interest of 9% p.a.
from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 30% disability 30,000/-
One grievous injury 20,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 10,700/-
----------
Total ... 67,700/-
===========
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant is unable to do the work as before. Counsel
appearing for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded very low and meagre sum of compensation towards disability. Normally the
Courts award Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- per percentage of disability. In this case, after taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and also
the oral and documentary evidence on record, it would be reasonable to award Rs. 1666/- per percentage of disability. If Rs. 1666/- is awarded,
the loss due to 30% disability works out to Rs. 49,980/- (rounded off to Rs. 50,000/-). In view of awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards loss due to
30% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards one grievous injury at Rs. 20,000/- is unwarranted and it is therefore deleted. The
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration
the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,700/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P47 are the series of medical bills. The claimant was in the hospital for 6 days.
There is no dispute that she was treated in Sundaram Medical Foundation, Chennai. It is an actual expenditure. Hence the amount awarded
towards medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date
of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal
at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 30% disability 50,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 10,700/-
--------------
Total ... 67,700/-
==============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 67,700/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 940 of 2001 (MCOP No. 157 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Manikantan was injured in the said accident. He was 24 years old at the time of accident. In his evidence it is stated only the
lorry driver has caused the accident and due to the same, he sustained a cut injury scalp 10cm in size and also an injury on the back of right ear.
He claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the claimant and determined the disability at 20%. Ex.P60 is
the disability certificate. Ex.P10-Accident Register also confirms the same. After considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation
of Rs. 17,350/- with interest of 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Two simple injuries 10,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 350/-
----------------
Total ... 17,350/-
================
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant is unable to do the work as before. There is no
dispute that the claimant was in the hospital for a period of 6 days and the Doctor determined the disability at 20%. Therefore, the Tribunal ought
to have awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss due to 20% disability. In view of awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss due to 20% disability,
the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards two simple injuries at Rs. 10,000/- is unwarranted and it is therefore deleted. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration the nature of
injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded Rs. 350/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P11 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and it is also very reasonable.
Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that
the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the
modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 20% disability 10,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 350/-
--------------
Total .... 17,350/-
==============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 17,350/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has not withdrawn the above compensation which was already deposited by the Insurance Companies. Under the
circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 941 of 2001 (MCOP No. 158 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Kalimuthu was injured in the said accident. He was 58 years old at the time of accident. He stated in his evidence that, due to
the accident, there was crowel end of right scapula and sustained grievous injuries. He was a Teacher. He claimed that he was earning Rs.
11,000/- per month. Ex.P12 is the Salary Certificate. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,38,000/-. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the
claimant and determined the disability at 35%. Ex.P62 is the disability certificate. Ex.P14-Accident Register also confirms the same. After
considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 67,500/- with interest of 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of
the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 35% disability 20,000/-
One grievous injury 20,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 20,500/-
---------------
Total ... 67,500/-
===============
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant was unable to do the work as before. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss due to 35% disability. Learned Counsel for
the claimants has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of 35% disability is very low. Taking into
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 40,000/- towards 35% disability. In view of
awarding Rs. 40,000/- towards loss due to 35% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards one grievous injury at Rs. 20,000/- is
unwarranted and it is therefore deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra
nourishment. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts are very
reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,500/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P15 are the series of medical
bills. It is an actual expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal
has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing
rate of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and
hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 35% disability 40,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 20,500/-
-----------
Total ... 67,500/-
===========
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 67,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 942 of 2001 (MCOP No. 159 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Kandaswamy was injured in the said accident. He was 58 years old at the time of accident. He claimed a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- as compensation. Due to the accident, he sustained head injury, grievous injury and also multiple injuries all over the body. He was a
Tailor. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the claimant and determined the disability at 40%. Ex.P64 is the disability certificate. Exs.P18 and
P19-Accident Registers also confirm the same. After considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 72,900/- with interest
of 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 40% disability 20,000/-
One grievous injury 20,000/-
Two simple injuries 10,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 15,900/-
--------------
Total ... 72,900/-
==============
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant is unable to do the work as before. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss due to 40% disability. Learned Counsel for
the claimant has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of 40% disability is very low. Taking into
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- towards 40% disability. In view of
awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards loss due to 40% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards one grievous injury at Rs. 20,000/- and
two simple injuries at Rs. 10,000/- are unwarranted and accordingly they are deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards
pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available
on record, I feel that these amounts are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,900/- towards medical
expenses. Ex.P16 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards
medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of
accident, the date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at
9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 40% disability 50,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 15,900/-
------------
Total ... 72,900/-
============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 72,900/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has not withdrawn the above compensation which was already deposited by the Insurance Companies. Under the
circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 943 of 2001 (MCOP No. 160 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Parimalam was injured in the said accident. She was 32 years old at the time of accident. She claimed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-
as compensation. Due to the accident, she sustained fracture of right wrist. She is a Tailor. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the claimant and
determined the disability at 20%. Ex.P66 is the disability certificate. Exs.P23 and P24-Accident Registers also confirm the same. After considering
the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 41,800/- with interest of 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the
compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 20% disability 10,000/-
One grievous injury 20,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 4,800/-
--------------
Total ... 41,800/-
==============
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant is unable to do the work as before. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss due to 20% disability. Learned Counsel for
the claimant has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of 20% disability is very low. Taking into
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 30,000/- towards 20% disability. In view of
awarding Rs. 30,000/- towards loss due to 20% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards one grievous injury at Rs. 20,000/- is
unwarranted and accordingly the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/-
towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts
are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,800/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P22 are the series of
medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of award and also the
prevailing rate of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is
reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 20% disability 30,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 4,800/-
--------------
Total ... 41,800/-
==============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 41,800/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has not withdrawn the above compensation which was already deposited by the Insurance Companies. Under the
circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 944 of 2001 (MCOP No. 161 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Minor Raghuram was injured in the said accident. He was 8 years old at the time of accident. He claimed a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- as compensation. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture of right wrist. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the claimant and
determined the disability at 15%. Ex.P68 is the disability certificate. Exs.P27 and P28-Accident Registers also confirm the same. After considering
the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,240/- with interest of 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the
compensation are as under:
Rupees
One grievous injury 20,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 240/-
--------------
Total ... 27,240/-
==============
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant is unable to do the work as before. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss due to 15% disability. Learned Counsel
for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount towards loss due to 15% disability. Taking into consideration of
the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- towards 15% disability. In view of awarding Rs. 20,000/-
towards loss due to 15% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards one grievous injury at Rs. 20,000/- is unwarranted and
accordingly the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra
nourishment. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts are very
reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 240/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P29 are the series of medical bills.
It is an actual expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing rate
of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and
hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 15% disability 20,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 240/-
-------------
Total ... 27,240/-
=============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 27,240/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has now attained the age of majority and hence he may be permitted to withdraw the above compensation which
was already deposited by the Insurance Companies. Under the circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper
application.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 945 of 2001 (MCOP No. 162 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Pappayee @ Kaliammal was injured in the said accident. She was 45 years old at the time of accident. She claimed a sum of
Rs. 1,12,500/- as compensation. Due to the accident, she sustained right scalp injury and also injuries in the right and left legs. P.W.17 is the
Doctor who examined the claimant and determined the disability at 20%. Ex.P70 is the disability certificate. Exs.P32 to 34-Accident Registers also
confirm the same. After considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,750/- with interest of 9% p.a. from the date of
petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
One simple injury 5,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 1,750/-
------------
Total ... 13,750/-
============
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant is unable to do the work as before. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss due to 20% disability. Learned Counsel
for the claimant has submitted that the the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount towards loss due to 20% disability. Taking into consideration
of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 5,000/- towards 20% disability. In view of awarding Rs. 5,000/-
towards loss due to 20% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards one simple injury at Rs. 5,000/- is unwarranted and accordingly
the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra nourishment. After
taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts are very reasonable and hence
they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1750/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P31 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual
expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest
at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest at that
time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is
confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 20% disability 5,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 1,750/-
-----------
Total ... 13,750/-
===========
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 13,750/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has not withdrawn the above compensation which was already deposited by the Insurance Companies. Under the
circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 946 of 2001 (MCOP No. 164 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Chockalingam was injured in the said accident. He was 38 years old at the time of accident. He claimed a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- as compensation. Due to the accident, he sustained facial injury and also multiple fractures in the right arm. P.W.17 is the Doctor who
examined the claimant and determined the disability at 25%. Ex.P72 is the disability certificate. Exs.P35 to 37-Accident Registers also confirm the
same. After considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,175/- with interest of 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The
details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 25% disability 10,000/-
Three simple injuries 15,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 2,175/-
-----------
Total .... 34,175/-
===========
P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant was unable to do the work as before. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss due to 25% disability. Learned
Counsel for the claimants has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is very low and hence the same has to be
enhanced. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 25,000/- towards 25%
disability. In view of awarding Rs. 25,000/- towards loss due to 25% disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards three simple injuries
at Rs. 15,000/- is unwarranted and accordingly the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and
Rs. 2000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that
these amounts are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2175/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P38 are
the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is
confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of
award and also the prevailing rate of interest at that time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 25% disability 25,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 2,175/-
------------
Total ... 34,175/-
============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 34,175/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has not withdrawn the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and that now, the claimant has died and the legal
heirs have been brought on record. Under the circumstances, the legal heirs of the deceased are permitted to make an application to the Tribunal
to withdraw the amount. On receipt of the application, the Tribunal shall consider the same and apportion the compensation amount to the
claimants, in accordance with law.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA No. 947 of 2001 (MCOP No. 165 of 1999):
(i) In this case, one Maruthanayagam was injured in the said accident. He was 50 years old at the time of accident. He claimed a sum of Rs.
4,08,000/- as compensation. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture and 3 simple injuries. P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the claimant
and determined the disability at 50%. Ex.P74 is the disability certificate. Exs.P40 and 41-Accident Registers also confirm the same. After
considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 69,707/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of
the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 50% disability 20,000/-
One grievous injury 20,000/-
3 simple injuries 15,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 7,907/-
---------------
Total .... 69,907/-
===============
From the above it is clear that the totalling of the award amounts work out to Rs. 69,907/-, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 69,707/-. It is a
totalling error. P.W.17, the Doctor, has stated in his evidence that due to the injuries stated above, the claimant was unable to do the work as
before. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss due to 50% disability.
Learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss due to 50% disability is very low and
hence the same has to be enhanced. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs.
55,000/- towards loss due to 50% disability. In view of awarding Rs. 55,000/- towards loss due to 50% disability, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal towards one grievous injury at Rs. 20,000/- and three simple injuries at Rs. 15,000/- are unwarranted and accordingly the same are
deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into
consideration the nature of injuries and also the evidence available on record, I feel that these amounts are very reasonable and hence they are
confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7907/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P42 and 43 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual
expenditure and it is also very reasonable. Hence the amount awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest
at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest at that
time, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is
confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss due to 50% disability 55,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Medical expenses 7,907/-
------------
Total .... 69,907/-
============
Even though the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 69,907/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed, the
amounts awarded under various heads have been modified. Since the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 69,707/- instead of Rs. 69,907/-, both the
Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the difference in amount of Rs. 200/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition, equally, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) It is stated that the claimant has not withdrawn the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and that now, the claimant has died and the legal
heirs have been brought on record. Under the circumstances, the legal heirs of the deceased are permitted to make an application to the Tribunal
to withdraw the amount. On receipt of the application, the Tribunal shall consider the same and apportion the compensation amount to the
claimants, in accordance with law. The legal heirs of the deceased are also permitted to withdraw the difference in amount of Rs. 200/- with 9%
p.a. from the date of petition, as stated above, once it is deposited by the Insurance Companies, on making proper application.
(iii) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs.
CMA(MD) No. 1090 of 2007 (MCOP No. 155 of 1999):
(i) The deceased-Rajalingam died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.08.1998. The claimants are the wife, minor children and
mother of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,35,800/-. The insurance company resisted the claim. The Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs. 57,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
No fault liability 50,000/-
Loss of consortium 5,000/-
Funeral expenses 2,000/-
---------------
Total ... 57,000/-
===============
Aggrieved by that award, the Appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal.
(ii) Learned Counsel for the Appellants/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a low and meagre sum of compensation in the case
of death. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimants. Even though the Tribunal held that the deceased also
contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of 50% against the fourth Respondent-Insurance
Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier method and the fourth Respondent-Insurance Company should have
been directed to pay 50% of compensation, but the Tribunal has not considered the said factor, it had simply awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards no
fault liability and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is
not in accordance with law and this is a fit case for enhancement.
(iii) There is no dispute that both the drivers of the van and the lorry were responsible for the accident and the Tribunal also rightly fixed the liability
at 50% each, against the Insurance Companies and the owners of the vehicles. Since there was contributory negligence on the part of the Tribunal
at 50%, the claimant is entitled to 50% compensation from the fourth Respondent-Insurance Company u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(iv) In the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered
the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows:
Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of
compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of Courts Tribunals on account
of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. (1951) AC 601 and some adopting the
Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942) AC 601. The difference between the two methods was
considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas
and others, . After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down
in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra).
In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death.
The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account
many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the
remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have
live or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got
better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.
The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to
deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure,
and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be
capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year''s purchase.
The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and
capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the
claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would
yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also
be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to
determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a
percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if
the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency
for 45 years - virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 - and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life
and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible.
In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies
method followed in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra), stated thus:
In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the
estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a
bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased
earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made
assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the
dependency was reduced, depending on the life span taken. That is the reason why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula
as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English courts rarely
exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when tribunals/courts began to use a hybrid method of using
Nance method without making deduction for imponderables.... Under the formula Advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be
ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus
assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an
appropriate multiplier....
(v) In the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, , the Apex Court has held as follows:
Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining ""the amount of compensation which appears to be just"". However,
the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression
which appears to be just"" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude
of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of
compensation.
Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons
affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data,
establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a
nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.
In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that: (SCC p.181, para 5)
...The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ''would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer
to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing''. The amount awarded must not be niggardly
since the ''law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales''.
At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of
providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident
and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.
The question as to what factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to a dependant came up for consideration before a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, with reference to a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855,
wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus: (AIR p. 1)
In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss
to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture.
Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the
future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the
balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained.
Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas
case, SCC p.182, para 9)
The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account
many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the
remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have
lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got
better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.
Thus, for arriving at a just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his
dependants at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the
data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may
partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon
himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalising it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An
appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. Since in the present case there is no dispute in
regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary to dilate on the issue.
After considering the principles enunciated in the judgments cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case.
(vi) At the time of accident, the deceased was 36 years old. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She stated in her evidence that the deceased was
earning Rs. 4000/- per month, i.e. a sum of Rs. 2000/- as driver and another Rs. 2000/- by way of Family Pension from the Government. Ex.P2 is
the Post Mortem Report of the deceased. Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased was contributing Rs. 4,000/- to the family, after
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to determine his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. If
1/3rd of the amount is deducted, the monthly contribution to the family works out to Rs. 2000/- and the annual contribution to the family works out
to Rs. 24,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- x 12). The age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident. There is no dispute regarding the same.
Therefore, 16 multiplier has to be adopted in this case. If 16 multiplier is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs. 3,84,000/- (Rs. 24,000/- x
16). Accordingly the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 50000/- towards ""No Fault Liability"" stands modified to Rs. 3,84,000/- under the
heading ""Loss of income"". The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The age of the widow was 32 years at the
time of accident. Taking into consideration of the same, it would be reasonable to award Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, as against Rs.
5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the two minor children and also
the mother of the deceased. It would be appropriate and reasonable to award Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the two minor
children and also the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and not awarded any amount
towards transport. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 5000/- towards both funeral
expenses and transport, instead of Rs. 2,000/- awarded only towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition. Considering the date of accident, date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest during that time, I am of the view that the
interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as
under:
Rupees
Loss of income 3,84,000/-
Loss of consortium 10,000/-
Loss of love & affection 20,000/-
Funeral & transport expenses 5,000/-
-------------
Total ... 4,19,000/-
-------------
Rounded off to ... 4,20,000/-
Less: Contributory negligence
on the part of the
deceased i.e. 50% 2,10,000/-
---------------
2,10,000/-
Less: Amount already awarded 57,000/-
---------------
1,53,000/-
===============
(vii) Under the circumstances, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition. Under the circumstances, the fourth Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(viii) It is stated that Minor Vairamuthu, the second Appellant herein, has attained the age of majority. Therefore, on such deposit of enhanced
amount of compensation by the fourth Respondent-Insurance Company, the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their proportionate shares on
making proper application. The share of Minor Naveenkumar, the third Appellant herein, shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank in a
Reinvestment Scheme, renewable every 3 years, till the minor attains the age of majority. The mother of the minor, the first Appellant herein, is
permitted to withdraw the interest accrued once in three months, from the deposit.
(ix) With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.