AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed for hearing, by consent of learned Counsel appearing for both parties, the
appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
The appeal is against the award and decree dated 2.11.2000 in M.C.O.P. No. 640 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Court), Salem. The owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company are the appellants herein.
This is a case of fatal injury. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was
35 years. He was working as Coolie in a unit engaged in stone-cutting and sizing. According to the claim petition, he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per
month. The fatal accident happened on 9.5.1999 at 8.30 a.m. when the deceased was walking along Salem-Sankari Main Road from north to
south on the left side. The deceased was hit by the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-37-B-4145 and he died on the spot. A claim for
compensation was made for Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company.
On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1, the claimant-mother of the deceased and P.W.2, the eye-witness to the occurrence were examined and
Ex.P-1, the certified copy of the F.I.R., Ex.P-2, the certified copy of the charge-sheet, Ex.P-3, the certified copy of the report of the Motor
Vehicle Inspector regarding the accident, Ex.P-4, the certified copy of post-mortem report of the deceased Perumal and Ex.P-5, the certified
copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 250 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sankari, were marked. No oral and
documentary evidence was tendered on behalf of the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle.
The Tribunal, based on the evidence of P.W.2, the eye-witness and other materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the liability
should be fixed on the driver of the vehicle as he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and consequently, the owner of the vehicle and
the Insurance Company were held liable. There is no serious dispute on this score.
As regards the quantum, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no proof or document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.
5,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- p.m., which according to the Insurance Company is not
based on any rationale or logic. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 4,32,000/- based on the abovesaid income.
The only dispute now is relating to the determination of the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that as a
Coolie, the deceased, at the most, would be earning only Rs. 100/- per day in the year 1999. If the said amount is taken into consideration and
also considering the daily earning capacity of similarly placed persons during the relevant time, the total monthly income of the deceased would be
Rs. 3,000/- only. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, while accepting the fact that there was no material before the Tribunal to
determine the income at Rs. 4,500/-, would fairly submit that he has no serious objection for such determination of the income at Rs. 3,000/- per
month.
On fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., the total annual income of the deceased will be Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting one-
third towards his personal expenses, the annual income of the deceased will be Rs. 24,000/-. Since the multiplier ''12'' adopted by the Tribunal is
in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta), the same is
accepted. Thus, by adopting multiplier ''12'', the loss of income comes to Rs. 2,88,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 12).
Further, no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the claim made by the claimants under the other heads which are as
follows:
(i) loss of transport to hospital - Rs. 3,000/-,
(ii) funeral expenses - Rs. 7,000/- and
(iii) loss of estate at Rs. 50,000/-.
Though the claim has been made under the above heads and since no amount has been awarded, this Court feels that appropriate amount should
be awarded on these heads, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.
Anbumani and Others, , relevant portion of which reads as follows:
It is unfortunate that the claimants have not filed cross-objections. But at the same time, it is not as if this Court is helpless and this Court can
certainly invoke its powers conferred under Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC since the court in deciding these matters, should remember that the
compensation awarded should not be inadequate, neither should be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. In this case, this Court is of the view
that the compensation that has been fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
Considering the age of the deceased who was 35 years at the time of death and the age of the mother said to be 53 years and the age of the
father at 55 years at the time of the accident, the possibility of the deceased contributing to the benefit of the claimants should also be considered.
In the result, while modifying the compensation at Rs. 2,88,000/- under the head ""loss of income"" as against Rs. 4,32,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal, this Court awards the following amounts under other heads:
(i) Loss of estate - Rs. 25,000/-
(ii) Transport to hospital - Rs. 3,000/-
(iii) Funeral expenses- Rs. 7,000/-
(iv) Loss of love and affection- Rs. 10,000/-
Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 3,33,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and thirty three thousand only). The
interest at 9% granted by the Tribunal is confirmed.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs. 3,33,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit. The Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the excess amount if any, after paying the compensation to the claimants. The civil
miscellaneous appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. C.M.Ps. are closed.
Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that in view of the order passed in the main appeal itself, the Registry may be directed to send
the records back to the Tribunal, so that the claimants could withdraw the amount of compensation. Registry is accordingly directed to send the
Records to the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.