The United India Insurance Company Limited vs Karuppannan and Others

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The appellant is the Insurance Company. The vehicle of the third respondent was insured with the appellant and

that vehicle involved in an accident and the bachelor son of the respondents 1 and 2 died due to the accident. The respondents 4 and 5 are

brothers and 6th respondent is the sister of the deceased.

The first and second respondents filed M.C.O.P. No. 128 of 2005, claiming Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation, before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (Sub-Court), Kulithalai and the Tribunal passed an award, dated 18.06.2008, granting a sum of Rs. 10,02,000/- as compensation under

the following heads:

------------------------------------------------------------

S. No. Description Amount in Rs.

------------------------------------------------------------

1 for loss of dependency Rs.8,82,000/-

for loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/-

for medical expenses Rs. 93,000/-

for funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/-

total Rs.10,02,000/-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the said award.

While admitting the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, this Court on 18.04.2009, directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount to the

credit of M.C.O.P. No. 128 of 20-05, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, as a condition for granting

an order of interim stay. The appellant also deposited the same and complied with the order. The claimants have filed application for withdrawal of

50% of the deposited award amount. Both the stay petition and the permission petition are listed today and with the consent of both parties, the

appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.

The appellant questions only the quantum of compensation. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the

deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal was not justified in choosing the multiplier based on the age of the bachelor. This contention is based on the

decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1(SC) The age of the deceased at the time of

accident was 27 years. The Tribunal took ''18'' as multiplier. The deceased was in Police service in Tamil Nadu Government and his monthly

earnings is Rs. 6,130/- and there is no dispute over it. The only dispute is relating to the choosing of the multiplier.

The learned Counsel for the claimants fairly submits that the Tribunal was not justified in choosing ''18'' as multiplier. The multiplier should have

been ''13'' based on the age of the mother. The age of the mother, the second respondent in the appeal, is 48 years. The appellant does not dispute

the same.

The learned Counsel for the claimants further submits that as per the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.

reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), future prospects should be taken and 50% of the monthly earnings of the deceased was taken towards

future prospects for calculating the compensation, the claimants could receive higher compensation than the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. In any event, he submits that he is satisfied, if the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.

The submissions of the learned Counsel for the claimants are well-founded. Before the Tribunal, a Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was

relied on, urging the Tribunal to take into the future prospects. As per the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Rama Gupta and Ors. v. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited reported in 2007 (1) TAC 221 (Raj), in the case of Government employees, twice the monthly earnings would be

taken for calculating the compensation, as such employees have better future prospects. The Tribunal refused to take one month earnings towards

future prospects as held by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that the deceased person in the above said judgement was a

married man with children and that therefore, that could not be applied. However, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla

verma''s Case referred to above, even for a bachelor, 50% of the salary of the person has to be added towards future prospects. Hence, if 50% of

the monthly earnings of the deceased was added towards future prospects and the compensation is worked out accordingly, the claimants could

get little more than the award of the Tribunal. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Tribunal and therefore the appeal fails.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.