AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Vimala, J.—Whether the married daughters who are living with their husbands and independently of the father, have a right to claim compensation on account of the death of their father, and when the deceased father was a Government servant on the verge of retirement, whether the split multiplier has to be applied while calculating the quantum of compensation, are the issues raised in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
The petitioners / claimants 1 to 4 filed a claim petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in respect of the death of their father Muthupandi, who died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 29.09.2009.
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- and the break-up details are furnished hereunder:
(Rounded off to Rs.4,75,000/-)
The quantum of compensation is under challenge on the following grounds:
a) The claimants being the married daughters of the deceased and were living independently of the father, cannot claim to be dependents upon the earnings of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have granted the quantum of compensation exceeding Rs.50,000/-.
b) The deceased was a Government servant aged 57 years, and therefore, the Tribunal should have given details regarding the quantum of compensation arrived at indicating the methodology applied in arriving at the total quantum of compensation.
No doubt, the claimants are married daughters, living separately with their respective husbands. The primary question is, in order to claim compensation on account of the death of their father, whether dependency is the sine qua non to make a claim. What is the legal requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act? Petition for compensation has to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:
"Application for compensation.-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made -
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such Application for compensation, the Application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the Application."
In terms of clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 166 of the Act, in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition.
Then the next question is, who can be considered as Legal Representative? According to Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ''legal representative'' means a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
It was held in the case of Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino Vs. Nalini Bai Naique, that the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, and it is not confined to legal heirs only. Even if the person is not a legal heir, if he is entitled to inherit the property of the deceased, he can represent the estate of the deceased, and thus he becomes the legal representative. For example, either the executor or the administrator in possession of the estate of the deceased, though they have no title, would be covered by the expression ''Legal Representative'' as they represent the estate of the deceased.
It was held in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, , that a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.
Therefore, it is clear that in order to have a right to make a petition for compensation, one need not be a dependent upon the earnings of the deceased and it is enough if he is the legal representative having suffered on account of the death of the deceased.
The view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Hafizun Begum Vs. Md. Ikram Heque and Others, Heque and others, has been reiterated in the decision reported in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, .
It is pertinent to highlight the view taken by this High Court that the proof of actual dependency is not necessary in law to claim compensation (CMA(MD)No. 1185 of 2006 dated 01.03.2007).
Therefore, the married daughters whether dependent or not, are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of their father, as they would suffer on account of loss to estate.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the age of the deceased and the income of the deceased are the relevant factors. The finding by the Tribunal is that the deceased was 57 years old at the time of accident and he was earning a sum of Rs.9,442/- per month, as Forest Guard.
According to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, split multiplier has to be applied, in accordance with the decision rendered in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Arulmozhi and Others .
According to Sarla Verma''s case, when the age of the deceased was 57, in respect of the age group 56 to 60, the multiplier to be adopted is 9.
Taking the age of retirement as 58, multiplier of 1 has to be adopted with reference to the monthly income of Rs.9,442/- less 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses. Calculating loss of dependency for one year (Rs.9,442/- minus Rs.3,148/- = Rs.6,294/- x 12 months = Rs.75,528/-, rounded to Rs.75,500/-).
After retirement, the deceased would have received only half of the salary as pension. Half of the salary is Rs.4,721/-. The fact remains that the deceased was living alone, his wife having predeceased him. Therefore, after retirement, necessarily he has to take shelter only under any one of his married daughters. Therefore, necessarily, when the income is Rs.4,721/-, he cannot spend 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, while living in his daughter''s house. Therefore, deducting Rs.1,000/- towards his personal expenses, the contribution would be Rs.3,721/-, rounded to Rs.3,700/-. Adopting the multiplier of 8, the loss of contribution for rest of the life would be Rs.3,700/- x 12 x 8 = Rs.3,55,200/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, may be rounding Rs.3,55,200/-. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal, even though not expressive in showing the calculation, is found to be in order while total amount of compensation is quantified.
Therefore, the appeal has no merits and the appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, wherein the quantum of compensation awarded has been found to be just and reasonable, the cross objection is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.