AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 28.06.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Sub Court), Tiruchirapalli in M.C.O.P. No. 656 of 1998 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the petitioners therein along with interest from the date of claim for the death of their son in a motor accident that took place on 20.09.1997.
The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal filed the above said M.C.O.P. No. 656 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub-Court), Trichirapalli claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation from the appellants herein with interest from the date of claim and litigation cost for the death of their son Dharman in a road accident that took place on 20.09.1997 in front of Ganesh Industries on the Trichirapalli-Dindigul road within the city limits of Trichirapalli.
According to the respondents/claimants in the M.C.O.P, the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the first appellant herein and having registration No. TN-37-H-8766 by its driver. The further case of the respondents/claimants is that when the deceased Dharman was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Registration No. T.S.K.7183 along with a pillion rider named Bose @ Idumban, the above said first appellant''s lorry came in the opposite direction driven by its driver at a high speed with rashness and negligence and dashed against the above said motorcycle; that the deceased Dharman sustained multiple injuries including severe head injuries and that the said Dharman, later on, on the same date, succumbed to the above said injuries, after a brief treatment in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichirapalli. With the further contention that the deceased was a bachelor aged about 21 years and was having an income of Rs. 100/- per day in his self-employment as a mason and that the respondents/claimants being the parents of the deceased were entitled to claim compensation from the appellants herein/respondents in the above said M.C.O.P., as the owner and insurer of the above said lorry, prayed for an award against the appellants directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation together with future interest and cost.
The owner of the offending vehicle did not file any counter statement. The Insurance Company alone filed a counter statement denying the petition allegations regarding the manner of accident, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent, the age, avocation and income of the deceased, the age and alleged dependency of the claimants and the reasonableness of the amount claimed as compensation. The further contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that the lorry involved in the accident was not insured with it (second appellant/second respondent) and that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Based on the above said contentions, the Insurance Company contended that it was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle, viz., lorry bearing Registration No. TN-37-H-8766.
The above said M.C.O.P. No. 656 of 1998 filed by the respondents herein (parents of the deceased Dharman) and another petition M.C.O.P. No. 421 of 1998 filed by the injured pillion rider, Bose @ Idumban were taken up together by the Tribunal for joint trial, in which the above said Bose @ Idumban and Marudhai, the second respondent in this appeal/second claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 656 of 1998 deposed as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. One Dr.Elangovan was examined as P.W.3. As many as four documents were marked on the side of the claimants in both the petitions, out of which Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-3 alone relate to the claim made by the respondents in this appeal. On the side of the appellants herein/respondents in the above said M.C.O.P. Nos. 656 and 421 of 1998, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence brought before it, in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, held that the driver of the lorry belonging to the first appellant and bearing Registration No. TN-37-H-8766 was responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the respondents herein with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim till realisation and with cost. The Tribunal also held that the lorry involved in the accident was insured with the second appellant/second respondent at the time of accident and that the absence of driving licence for its driver pleaded by the second appellant/second respondent (Insurance Company) had not been substantiated by the second appellant (Insurance Company). In line with the above finding, the Tribunal held that the appellants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 656 of 1998 were jointly and severally liable to compensate the respondents herein/claimants in M.C.O.P.656 of 1998 for the death of their son Dharman and awarded the above said amount as compensation.
Aggrieved by the same, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle have come on appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal in respect of the quantum of compensation alone. The Tribunal had also awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/- as compensation for the above said pillion rider Bose @ Idumban, the petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 421 of 1998, regarding which, we are not concerned in this appeal. The appellants have not chosen to challenge the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence. Even the findings of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle had been insured with the second appellant at the time of accident; that the second appellant had not substantiated its plea of violation of policy condition on the ground that the driver did not possess valid driving licence and that hence as per the contract of insurance, the second appellant was liable to shoulder the liability of the first appellant to pay compensation - has not been challenged.
On the other hand, the appellants have challenged only the reasonableness of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for the death of the son of the respondents herein. Therefore, it is unnecessary to deal with the pleadings and evidence regarding the question of negligence and the obligation of the appellants to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants. Suffice to deal with the question of quantum of compensation alone.
Therefore the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows:
Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is excessive? If so, what is the reasonable amount to which the respondents/claimants shall be entitled as compensation?
The Tribunal, after holding that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligence driving of the lorry belonging to the first appellant/first respondent and that both the appellants/respondents 1 and 2, as the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle (lorry) were liable to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants, assessed the total compensation at Rs. 2,50,000/- with the following split up particulars:
Loss of dependency = Rs. 2,40,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection = Rs. 10,000/- --------------- Total = Rs. 2,50,000/- ---------------
The Tribunal observed that the deceased as a mason would have been earned Rs. 1,875/- per month at the rate of Rs. 75/- per day, holding that he might have needed 5 days rest without income. Deducting 1/3 from the same for personal maintenance that would have been incurred by the deceased, had he not died in the accident, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency occasioned to the respondents/claimants at Rs. 1,250/- per month which is equal to Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal selected 16 to be the appropriate multiplier for assessing the damages for loss of dependency and arrived at the figure Rs. 2,40,000/- by multiplying the above said amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the selected multiplier 16. There is no grievance over the formula adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the damages for loss of dependency.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellants that the Tribunal committed an error in the selection of an appropriate multiplier for assessing the above said item of damages. It is an agreed preposition that in case of a fatal accident, the selection of multiplier should be made based on the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants whichever (age) is higher.
According to the petition averments, the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 21 years. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal took into consideration the age of the deceased alone in selecting the multiplier. The Tribunal has not even discussed the pleading and evidence regarding the age of the claimants and no finding regarding their age has been rendered by the Tribunal. As such, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/respondents that the method adopted by the Tribunal in selecting a multiplier based on the age of the deceased, disregarding the age of the claimants who are the parents of the deceased, seems to have substance in it. As per the petition averments, the deceased Dharman was aged 21 years and the first and second respondents/first and second claimants were aged 50 years and 52 years respectively as on the date of accident. The deceased Dharman died as a bachelor and his parents alone were the claimants before the Tribunal. Therefore when the selection of a smaller multiplier is possible if the age of the claimant rather than that of the deceased is taken as the basis of selection of multiplier, then it shall be proper to select a multiplier based on the age of the claimant in a fatal accident case. In this case, both the respondents/claimants were admittedly in the age group of 50 to 55 at the time of making the claim. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group shall be 11, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has also fairly conceded that the Tribunal committed an error in selecting a multiplier based on the age of the deceased and that an appropriate multiplier should have been selected based on the age of the claimants. Admitting that the respondents/claimants, at the time of making the claim, were in the age group of 50 to 55, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal should have selected 11 instead of 16, as the appropriate multiplier in this case.
For the reasons stated above, this Court comes to a conclusion that the Tribunal has committed an error in selecting 16, as the multiplier for assessment of compensation for loss of dependency and that the selection of 11, as the multiplier should have been made.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal has failed to award any amount for loss of expectation of life and for pain and suffering of the deceased in between the time of accident and the time of death. It is the further submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants, if reasonable amounts are allowed as compensation on the above said heads and the income of the deceased is also reasonably assessed at a higher level, then the total amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal could be sustained. Clear evidence has been adduced to show that the deceased was self-employed as mason. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a mason would get only a sum of Rs. 75/- per day and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,875/-, taking 25 man power days in a month, leaving the remaining five days for rest. It cannot be disputed that a mason will need at least five days rest in a month.
On the other hand, the assessment of income of a mason at Rs. 75/- per day is definitely at a lower level. Therefore, it shall be just and proper to assess the daily income of a mason at Rs. 100/- and the monthly income at Rs. 2,500/- leaving five days as rest without income. Thus the annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 2,500 x 12 = Rs. 30,000/-. If 1/3 is deducted, the balance shall be Rs. 20,000/-. The same shall be the loss of dependency occasioned to the respondents/claimants. When the above said multiplicand is multiplied by the selected multiplier 11, the product will be Rs. 2,20,000/-, which shall be the reasonable amount of compensation for the loss of dependency. Considering the fact that the deceased died at the age of 21, for loss of expectation of life, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- can be awarded. Considering the short duration during which the deceased would have undergone pain and suffering, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,000/- shall be reasonable. Since the respondents/claimants are aged persons, the award of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection can be reduced to Rs. 6,000/-. If such an assessment and adjustment are made, we can arrive at the figure Rs. 2,40,000/- as the reasonable compensation to which the respondents/claimants shall be entitled. Therefore, this Court comes to a conclusion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is slightly at a higher level and that the same should be reduced by Rs. 10,000/- bringing down the total amount of compensation to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The award of the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the extent indicated above and in all other respects, the same should be confirmed.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 10,000/- making the total amount of compensation Rs. 2,40,000/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.