AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice P. Devadass
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Transport Corporation directed C.M.A. No. 2368 of 2009 and the
claimants have directed Cross Objection No. 3 of 2010. On 11.09.2005, in a road accident, one Ellamuthu died. Claimants are his dependents.
The Tribunal totally awarded them Rs. 2,60,000/-.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation, the Tribunal had taken into account an excessive amount as income
of the deceased. The amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/Cross objectors contended that the deceased was a Mason and he would have earned
a minimum of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. Further, as per Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, even a self employed person is
entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects. Further, as per SMT. SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [ 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)], the multiplier should be ''9''. But, the Tribunal had adopted only ''7''. Further,
for loss of love and affection of the deceased and for loss of consortium proper compensation was not awarded. On the whole only lesser
compensation has been granted.
I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
The deceased was stated to be a Mason and he is alleged to have earned Rs. 7,500/- p.m. The Tribunal had taken Rs. 4,000/- p.m. P.W.3
Srinivasan, a colleague of the deceased has been examined. There is no written proof to show that the deceased was earning so much. In the
circumstances, the Tribunal had taken Rs. 4,000/- p.m. To apply SANTHOSH DEVEI (supra) there must be some acceptable concrete materials.
In this case, it is absent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as income taken by the Tribunal.
From the said Rs. 4,000/-, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd, namely, Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier ''7''.
At the time of accident, the deceased was 56 years old. The correct multiplier is ''9'' and not ''7''. There are 4 dependents to the deceased. In
the circumstances, as per SARALA VERMA (supra), the deduction towards pleasure and other expenses of the deceased should be 1/4 and not
1/3.
Now, calculating on the above lines, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-. (Rs. 4,000/- x 12 = Rs. 48,000/- less 1/4 = Rs.
36,000/- x 9 = Rs. 3,24,000/-). Towards loss of consortium, instead of Rs. 10,000/- the first appellant is granted Rs. 15,000/-. Towards loss of
love and affection, instead of Rs. 5,000/- each, claimants 2 to 4 are granted Rs. 10,000/- each. Transportation and Cremation expenses should be
granted separately. However, the Tribunal had mixed both the items and awarded Rs. 6,000/-. Towards transportation charges and towards
cremation expenses Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively are awarded. In the result, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified. The
claimants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,77,000/- together with interest @ 9.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till
deposit. The appellant/Transport Corporation shall deposit the entire award amount, less amount, if any, already deposited, within four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, less amount, if any, already
withdrawn by them. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.