AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Palani.
Heard both sides.
The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated
17.04.2006, to a tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on the following sub-heads:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs. 2,68,800.00
(ii) For Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000.00
(iii) For Loss of love and
affection - Rs. 18,000.00
(iv) For Loss of funeral expenses - Rs. 3,200.00
---------------
Total - Rs. 3,00,000.00
---------------
The gist and kernel of the grievance of the appellant as stood exposited from the memorandum of appeal could be portrayed thus:
The Tribunal awarded excess compensation even though the deceased died at the age of 58 as an agricultural worker. Under various other sub-
heads also the Tribunal awarded excess compensation.
During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 was examined and Exs. P.1 to 15 were marked and there was no oral or documentary evidence
adduced on the side of the respondents.
The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ''just compensation''?
Point: The learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company would develop his arguments by placing reliance on the various aspects of the
judgment of the Tribunal and submit that an agricultural cooly of 58 years could not have earned a sum of Rs. 4,200/- during the year 2000.
Whereas the learned Counsel for the claimants would argue that he was not an agricultural cooly but he was cultivating agricultural lands.
Be that as it may, in respect of a person doing agricultural operation or agricultural work, one cannot precisely prove his income by any
conclusive evidence. Hence, it is better to adhere to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Road Transport
Corporation Limited v. Mayilathal and Ors. reported in 2004(1) TN MAC 337, which would suggest that the income of such persons could be
taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Accordingly, if viewed, it could be taken here that the deceased aged 58 years was earning Rs. 3,000/- per
month. After deducting 1/3rd towards expenditure, which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself, had he been alive, the monthly
dependency could be worked out to Rs. 2,000/- per month and the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The Tribunal has correctly
adopted the multiplier 8 as the widow is the main claimant entitled to substantial compensation and the other two claimants are the major sons of
the deceased, who are entitled to a limited amount of compensation towards loss of love and affection. Hence, the loss of income is worked out to
Rs. 24,000/- � 8 = Rs. 1,92,000/-.
Under the caption loss of consortium a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which could be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only). Towards loss of love and affection a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was awarded which could be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only). Toward funeral expenses a sum of Rs. 3,200/- was awarded and that is confirmed as such. Towards Transport
charges no amount was awarded and that Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) could be awarded towards it. Regarding damage to the
vehicle, the Tribunal at paragraph 7 of its judgment held that even though Ex.P.7 was for Rs. 6,480.50/-, no amount could be awarded, in as much
as the person who issued it was not examined. I am of the view that taking into account the nature of the accident the Tribunal could have awarded
some amount towards damage to the vehicle, but it had not done so. Hence, towards damage to the vehicle of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) could be awarded considering the nature of the accident. Towards loss of Estate no amount was awarded, hence, a sum of
Rs. 6,800/- (Rupees Six Thousand and Eight Hundred only) could be awarded. The compensation, awarded therefore is modified as under:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs. 1,92,000.00
(ii) For Loss of consortium - Rs. 15,000.00
(iii) For Loss of love and
affection - Rs. 20,000.00
(iv) For Loss of funeral expenses - Rs. 3,200.00
(v) For Transport charges - Rs. 2,000.00
(vi) For Damages to vehicle - Rs. 5,000.00
(vii) For loss of Estate - Rs. 6,800.00
------------------
Total - Rs. 2,44,000.00
------------------
The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit convincingly that the Tribunal awarded 6% which by any standard cannot be
countenanced. Hence, the interest awarded is enhanced to 7.5% in commensurate with the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) TAC 297 SC and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie
and Anr. reported in 2006 (1) TAC 1 (SC).
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
only) to Rs. 2,44,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and forty four Thousand only). The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% p.a. is
enhanced to 7.5% p.a. Proportionately there will be variation in the allotments to each of the claimants depending upon the variation in the total
compensation awarded. In other aspects the award shall hold good. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2007 is closed. No costs.