AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Vaidyanathan, J.—Being not satisfied with the quantum of Compensation at Rs. 7,57,600/- along with interest with 7.5% p.a. awarded by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai in MCOP No. 211 of 2009, for the death of their family member, Thiru Shankar in a road accident, the Claimants/Appellants came forward with the present Appeal.
The brief facts of the case are, that on 21.12.2008 at about 09.20 hrs, while one Shankar was riding his Scooter bearing Registration No. TN-07-Q-8653 from Adyar Grand Sweets to his residence through Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Salai, when reached near Avain Park, Adyar, a car bearing registration No. TN-07-AL-8416 came in a rash and negligent manner from Besant Avenue Road, turned towards his right and dashed against Scooter and as a result of which the rider of the Scooter fell down and sustained head injuries and got admitted in Malar Hospital, Adyar, Chennai and died on 24.12.2008. The Claimants who are the wife and daughter respectively of the deceased, filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards Compensation.
This Claim Petition was resisted by the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company by way of Counter Affidavit, wherein while disputing the age, occupation, income, of the deceased, manner of the accident, nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is stated that there was no rash and negligent and part of the driver of the car and the deceased alone was responsible for the accident.
Before the Tribunal, the Claimants examined 3 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 13 documents as Ex. P1 to P13 and on behalf of the Respondents no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
On evaluation of the entire evidence both oral and documentary available on records the Tribunal has held that the accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the dirver of the Car. At the time of accident the deceased was 61 years and he was working as a General Manager in M/s. Sivakami Commercial Company Private Limited and drawing a sum of Rs. 22,425/- p.m. after deduction towards Income Tax. Considering the fact that the employment of the deceased was getting extended by every year as could be seen from Ex. P6-Appointment Order, the Tribunal has taken Rs. 22,425/- p.m. for one year and for rest of six years, 50% of the monthly income, i.e. Rs. 11,212.50 has been taken and thus by adopting Split Multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,17,600/- towards Loss of Income, after deducting ?rd towards Personal Expenses. (Rs. 22425/- x 12 (for one year) + 11212.50 x 12 x 6 (for six years) = 10,76,400 - 3,58,800/- (less ?rd towards Personal Expenses) = Rs. 7,17,600/-.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that while computing the future prospectus for determining the Loss of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has erroneously adopted Split Multiplier method instead of following the Multiplier method as guided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and therefore, the Order of the Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision reported in Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, 2014 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC) : 2014 ACJ 526. He also contended that the Tribunal has not properly awarded under the conventional heads, viz., Consortium, Pain & Suffering, Funeral and Transport Charges.
In Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, 2014 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC) (cited supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while following its earlier decision reported in K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer, 2011 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC) : 2011 ACJ 743, has held as under in Para 34:
"34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the Tribunal or the Court should not apply Split Multiplier in routine course and should apply Multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari, 2013 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC) : 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC)".
It is true that the Courts should not introduce the Concept of Split Multiplier departing from the Multiplier method as guided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case (cited supra) without disclosing any reason therefor. But on a perusal of the award of the Tribunal, we find that for adopting the Split Multiplier, the Tribunal has given sufficient reasons. Admittedly, as seen from Ex. P6-Appointment Order, the employment of the deceased was renewable and being extended by every year. Therefore, taking note of this, the Tribunal was of the view that it cannot be expected that the service of the deceased as General Manager will be extended for the remaining seven years, hence, it is appropriate to take full salary for a period of one year and thereafter 50% of the salary for the remaining six years and accordingly, the Tribunal determined the loss of income as stated supra. This reasoning of the Tribunal, in our view, is justifiable and reasonable since the possibility of extending or not extending the services of the deceased for the remaining seven years has been rightly considered as 50:50. Hence, we are not inclined to take a different view. Therefore, as the Tribunal has given reasons for adopting Split Multiplier, the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellants cannot be made applicable to the present case.
As regards the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads, viz., Rs. 10,000/- towards ''Loss of Consortium'' to the First Claimant, who is the wife of the deceased; Rs. 10,000/- each towards Loss of Love and Affection to the Claimant/Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, who are the daughter and mother of the deceased respectively and Rs. 10,000/- towards ''Funeral Expenses'' are concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount under the said heads and the same are required to be enhanced. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the judgment of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC) : 2013 ACJ 1403, wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under in Para 20:
"20. ....We may therefore, revisit the practise of awarding Compensation under conventional heads, Loss of Consortium to the spouse, Loss of Love, Care and Guidance to children and Funeral Expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the some needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma''s case (supra), it was held that Compensation for Loss of Consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In legal parlance, ''consortium'' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The Concept of Non-Pecuniary Damage for Loss of Consortium'' is one of the major heads of award of Compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc., English Courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get Compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By ''Loss of Consortium'', the Courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse''s affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the Compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under the head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least rupees one lakh for ''Loss of Consortium''."
Therefore, having regard to the above, we are inclined to enhance the award to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Loss of Consortium to the first Claimant/wife of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- each to the Claimant/Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, namely, daughter and mother of the deceased, towards Loss of Love and Affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses together with Transport Expenses.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants also contended that after the accident, the deceased was admitted in the hospital, wherein, while taking treatment, he died and therefore, the Claimants are entitled Compensation for having suffered mental agony by them in the form of ''Pain and Suffering'' underwent by the deceased. In this regard, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision reported in N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation, 1985 ACJ 75 wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under in Para 4:
"4. Thereafter, the High Court proceeded meticulously to examine every item of Compensation included in the award. The High Court held that award of Rs. 5,000/- under the head Mental Agony suffered by the Claimants as a result of the death of the deceased cannot legally be sustained. This is only the different way of looking at the same thing which is legally permissible. Muthukrishnan lived for 19 days since the accident and he was throughout under a shadow of death. He had suffered severe injuries. He must have suffered continuous pain and Compensation was admissible for Pain and Suffering, suffered by the deceased. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which the High Court held inadmissible, is legitimately admissible under another head and therefore by changing the head we restore the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal."
On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased sustained injuries in the road accident occurred on 21.12.2008 and he died after three days, i.e. on 24.12.2008 during the course of treatment. He lived for three days from the date of accident and he was throughout under a shadow of death and had suffered severe injuries. Therefore, having regard to the decision cited supra, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- [sic Rs. 25,000] can be awarded under the head Pain and Suffering underwent by the deceased.
Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl. No.
Particulars
Amount granted by the Tribunal
Amount granted by this Court
1
Loss of Income
Rs. 7,17,600/-
confirmed
2
Loss of Consortium to First Claimant/Tmt. Umashanker, wife of the deceased
Rs. 10,000/-
Rs. 50,000/-
3
Loss of Love and Affection to Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, namely, daughter and mother of the deceased
Rs. 20,000/-
Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- each)
4
Funeral Expenses & Transport
Rs. 10,000/-
Rs. 25,000/-
5
Pain and Suffering underwent by the deceased
-
Rs. 25,000/-
Total
Rs. 7,57,600/-
Rs. 8,67,600/-
As regards the award of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly awarded 7.5% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition, i.e. 12.01.2009 till the date of deposit. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and the same is confirmed.
With the above modification, the Appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
The Second Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as modified above, i.e. Rs. 8,67,600/- along with accrued interest thereon at 7.5% p.a. from the date of Petition, i.e. 12.01.2008 till the date of payment, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount if any already paid pursuant to the Interim Orders of this Court. On such deposit being made, the Claimants are permitted to withdraw award amount proportionately as apportioned by the Tribunal, on filing a proper Aan be withdrawn by the Claimants forthwith on production of a copy of this order before the Tribunal.