AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Mathivanan, J.—Being dissatisfied with the claim of Rs. 3,60,000/-as against the actual claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, dated 12.02.2002 and
made in MCOP No. 131 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Karur, the claimants have come
forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement.
The facts leading the Appellants to come forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as under:
That on 24.02.2001 at about 12.00 noon, near Reddipalayam bus stop at Karur to Kovai main road, the deceased Subramanian was run over by
a lorry bearing registration No. TN-45-Z 2029, when he was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN47B-6121. On account of the
accident, he had succumbed to injury instantaneously on the spot. In this connection, a case in Crime No. 263 of 2001 was registered on
24.02.2001 u/s 304-A IPC on the file of the Karur Town Police Station. Hence, the claimants being the wife, children and mother of the
deceased, had filed a claim petition in MCOP No. 131 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court),
Karur, claiming a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-towards compensation.
The Respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and the Insurer of the lorry, had contested the claim petition on various grounds.
On appreciating the evidences, both oral and documentary and other materials available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Karur, had ultimately proceeded to pass an award of Rs. 3,60,000/-directing the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company to pay this amount to the
claimants on behalf of the 1st Respondent (the owner of the vehicle). Being dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have
approached this Court by way of this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Heard both sides.
Mr. V. Jeevagiridharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants has submitted that:
The gross salary of the deceased was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while arriving at the quantum of compensation.
Though, the deceased was working as Village Administrative Officer, he was also doing agricultural operations and as such, his income from the
agricultural operation was omitted to be considered at the time of calculating the annual income of the deceased.
Since the deceased was died at the age of 48, he was having promotional opportunity, but the Tribunal has not considered his future prospects
to compensate the claimants in proportionate to the loss of income to the family; and 4. The Tribunal has not justified in adopting the multiplier of
10, instead of applying the multiplier system of 13, as contemplated under II Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
Admittedly, the deceased was working as Ammapatti Village Administrative Officer. As evident from Ex.P7 the Pay Certificate, he was drawing
a gross salary of Rs. 7,244/-. After deduction of Rs. 2,448/-, his net salary was Rs. 4,756/-.
In this connection, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants submitted that''s decided by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s
case, reported in (2009)4 MLJ 997(SC) only statutory deduction alone can be made, but the Tribunal has not justified in taking the deceased''s
net salary for calculating the loss of family. Since the employment of the deceased was permanent and stable, there is no impediment in taking his
gross salary to calculate the quantum.
With regard to the agricultural income, the Appellants/claimants in order to substantiate their case, has produced Exs.P8, P9 and P12. Ex.P8 is
the Chitta Adangal extract stands in the name of the deceased. Whereas Ex.P9 is the patta stands in the name of the deceased. Ex.P12 is the
receipt issued by Shanmuga Milk having sold the milk.
On appreciation of these documents and on considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, this Court is of view
that by the death of the deceased in the aforementioned accident, the income derived from the agricultural operation as well as from the milk
business will not be diminished, because even in the absence of the deceased, the agricultural operation would be done by the claimants and hence,
the contention in this connection on behalf of the Appellants/claimants is not able to be countenanced.
With regard to the ground No. 4, as rightly argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants, the Tribunal has not justified
in adopting the multiplier of 10. The Tribunal was under the wrong notion that had the deceased been alive, he would have retired at the age of 58
on attaining his superannuation. On this line, the Tribunal has taken the age of difference i.e., between 48 and 58 and that''s why, it has gone to the
extent of adopting the multiplier of 10 for calculating the quantum.
As contemplated under II Schedule of Section 163-A, of the Motor Vehicles Act, ''13'' is the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as
it appears from Sarla Verma''s case, reported in (2009)4 MLJ 997(SC):
Age of the Multiplier scaleMultiplier scaleMultiplier scaleMultiplier Multiplier
deceased as envisaged inas adopted by in Trilok specified in actually used in
Susamma Trilok ChandraChandra as second columnSecond
Thomas clarified in in the Table in Schedule to
Charlie II Schedule to MV Act (as
MV Act seen from the
quantum of
compensatio n)
46 to50 years 10 12 13 13 12
The Apex Court has also observed that in the above cited case, the multiplier scale should be prepared by applying the principles from General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, .
It is also observed that:
Three basic facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased,
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will
also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps.
After making a comparative study, this Court finds that ''13'' would be the reasonable multiplier scale. In the light of the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in the above cited Sarla Verma''s case, the gross salary of the deceased i.e. a sum of Rs. 7,244/-canbe taken into consideration for
arriving at the quantum. The annual dependency of the deceased is[Rs.7,244 x 12] = Rs. 86,928/-. After giving deduction of 1/3rd which would
have spent on him by way of personal and living expenses, the 2/3rd remainder would be Rs. 57,952/-. On application of the multiplier ''13'',the
loss of income of the family would be Rs. 7,53,376/-
On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has concluded that the 2nd Appellant/2nd claimant is not entitled to claim
the compensation.
In this connection, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants would argue that at the time of death of the deceased, the 2nd
Appellant/2nd claimant was only at the age of 21. Since, he was a non-earning member, he had to depend upon the deceased. Hence, the
rejection of the compensation for the 2nd Appellant/2nd claimant has not been justified by the Tribunal.
This Court has carefully considered the submission focused on behalf of the Appellants and found that there is some force in the argument
advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants.
Having regard to the related facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of considered view that the 2nd Appellant/2nd claimant is also
entitled to get compensation. Apart from this, the Tribunal has not considered the compensation for the loss of love and affection in respect of the
Appellants 2 to4/Claimants 2 to 4 as well as the consortium for the 1st Appellant/1st claimant for which the Tribunal has not assigned any
reasoning.
Keeping in view of the above facts, this Court is of considered view that since the first Appellant/1st claimant being the wife of the deceased
was aged about39 years at the time of occurrence, she is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards consortium. Similarly, the Appellants 2 to
4/Claimants 2 to 4 are also entitled to Rs. 10,000/-each towards loss of love and affection. In total, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.
7,93,376/-
Accordingly, the award of the TribunalRs.3,60,000/-is enhanced to Rs. 7,93,376/-. The 2nd Respondent herein being the insurer is directed to
pay this amount to the Appellants/claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition instated of 9%.
With the above observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.