The Managing Director vs V. Jeyapackialakshmi

S. Vimala, J.—The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation alone. The deceased Nagaraj, aged 23 years, engaged in Poultry Farming business, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, met with death in an accident which took place on 31.12.2003. The mother of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Tribunal. As against the claim made for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,47,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition. The break-up details of the compensation are as under:

While quantifying the compensation towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, arrived at the monthly dependency at Rs. 2,000/- and adopting the multiplier of 13 by considering the age of the mother, has quantified the compensation for loss of earnings. Challenging the awards as excessive and disproportionate to the income of the deceased, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier adopted should be with reference to the age of the claimant and not dependent upon the age of the deceased. It is pointed out that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 13. Yet another contention is that when the deceased was a bachelor, the personal expenses should have been deducted at 50% and not 1/3rd.

Whether these two contentions can be accepted, is the point for consideration in this appeal.

So far as the proper choice of multiplier is concerned, for sometime, the Tribunal was following the age of the claimant when the deceased is a bachelor. At a later point of time, the Apex Court passed the judgment in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , wherein it has been held that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependents as there would be number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different. On this ground, it has been held that it is only the age of the deceased which should be the basis even if the parents are claimants. If this choice of multiplier is to be adopted, based upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court supra, then the multiplier which should have been adopted is 18 and not 13. If 18 multiplier is adopted, the award would exceed Rs. 3,47,000/-. Therefore the appeal of the Transport Corporation in this respect, has no merits.

So far as the question of deduction is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in stating that it is only 50% which has to be deducted towards personal expenses, as pointed out in the above decision. Even if 50% of income is deducted towards personal expenses, when the multiplier is 18, then the compensation to be awarded would be Rs. 3,24,000/- for loss of income alone. If compensation under other heads are added, the total compensation would be more than Rs. 3,47,000/-. Therefore, even though the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is correct, the calculation comes to the same level. Therefore, the appeal has no merit in this respect also.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.