AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—C.M.A. No. 3339 of 2009 has been filed by the Insurance Company, while C.M.A. No. 3403 of 2009 has
been filed by the claimants. The appeals are against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai dated
19.2.2007 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 736 of 2001.
According to the claimants, on 20.7.2000 when the husband of the first claimant was travelling in his Hero Honda Splendor two wheeler bearing
registration No. TN-50-C-0825, at about 6.30 p.m. in Raja Mill Road, Palam, Madurai Town, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TN-58-
C-4746 belonging to the third respondent and driven by the fourth respondent hit against the deceased and in that accident the deceased was
thrown from his vehicle on the road, due to which he sustained multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. According to the
claimants, the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the fourth respondent. The deceased, who was stated to be aged 32
years at the time of the accident, was a medical practitioner specialized in anesthesia. He was stated to have been practicing as Consultant
Anesthesiologist. The claimants made a claim of Rs. 50 Lakhs by way of compensation. The claimants are wife and minor daughter of the
deceased.
Before the Tribunal, the appellants/Insurance Company took the stand that the deceased also contributed to the accident by his negligence and
therefore, he was not entitled to the compensation, and that in any case his monthly income was not Rs. 30,000/- as claimed by the claimants.
The Tribunal rejected the stand of the Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased as well. As
far as the income of the deceased was concerned, the Tribunal held that the income of the deceased would have been not less than Rs. 20,000/- to
Rs. 25,000/- per month. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 30,60,000/- towards loss of dependency, apart from Rs. 5,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affection.
In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company apart from stressing his submissions on the point relating to contributory
negligence as well as the income of the deceased, also contended that the Tribunal applied 17 multiplier for the age of 32 years of the deceased,
while the proper multiplier would be only 16. For that purpose, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .
We heard Mr.Parthiban, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in these appeals.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and having perused the award of the Tribunal as well as the other connected
materials, we are of the view that the allegation of contributory negligence has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. According to the
claimants, the deceased was riding on his vehicle on the left side of the road, while the autorickshaw driven by the fourth respondent from the
opposite direction attempted to overtake a lorry and in that process drove the auto to the extreme right side of the road in high speed which
resulted in the accident. Insofar as the said case pleaded by the claimants is concerned, though no eye witness was examined, it was noted by the
Tribunal that the criminal court records disclose such a case described by the police also and that the fourth respondent pleaded guilty and paid the
fine. The said facts have been established by way of Exs.P13 and P14. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the appellants to contend that since
because no eye witness to the accident was examined, it should be held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. We are
not, therefore, impressed by the said submission of the learned Counsel.
As far as the income part of the deceased is concerned, in support of the claim that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 30,000/- per
month, Exs.P.15 to P.18, income tax returns were filed. Ex.P18 is the income tax return for the assessment year 2001-2002 which corresponds to
the accounting year 2000-2001. Of course, the said return was filed on 9.12.2003. Nevertheless, unless the income tax return is either rejected by
the authorities of the Income Tax Department or any other contra evidence is placed before the Tribunal to state that the details furnished in the
income tax return did not reflect the correct figures, there is no reason to reject Ex.P18. As per Ex.P18, the net income of the deceased during the
relevant period was Rs. 29,224/-. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal in having taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.
25,000/- cannot be faulted.
The only other argument relates to the application of multiplier that was applied by the lower court. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time
of the accident. As per the Second Schedule, the Tribunal held that 17 multiplier would be appropriate for calculating the compensation. In this
context, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla
Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . The Hon''ble Supreme Court has made a detailed analysis as to the application
of multiplier in such claims made u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also considered the earlier decisions in General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, as well as in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and
Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, and held as under:
Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas [set out in
Column (2) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, [set out in Column (3) of the table above]; some
follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie [set out in Column (4) of the table above]; many follow the multiplier given in the second column of
the table in the Second Schedule of the MV Act [extracted in Column (5) of the table above]; and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in
the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation [set out in Column (6) of the table above]. For example if the deceased is
aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given
in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Some
tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid
this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling u/s 166 and not u/s 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling u/s 166 of the MV Act,
Davies method is applicable.
We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma
Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced
by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years,
and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for
61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
Bound as we are by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we hold that the appropriate multiplier for the age group between 31 and 35
years, in the case on hand, can only be 16 and not 17 which has been applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, only in that respect we feel that the
judgment of the Tribunal needs modification. In other respects, we confirm the judgment of the Tribunal. Insofar as the compensation for loss of
dependency is concerned, we alter the multiplier to 16 and on that that basis when the compensation is calculated, it works out to Rs. 28,80,000/-.
We, therefore, hold that the compensation payable to the claimants would be as under:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of dependency (Rs. 15,000 x 12 x 16) Rs. 28,80,000.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of Consortium Rs. 20,000.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Love and affection Rs. 50,000.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total: Rs. 29,55,000.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appellants/Insurance Company is stated to have deposited the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- before filing this appeal. We, therefore,
direct the appellants/Insurance Company to pay the remaining sum of Rs. 29,30,000/- with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the said amount of Rs. 29,55,000/- with accrued interest, the first claimant shall be permitted to withdraw
Rs. 10,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the remaining sum of Rs. 19,55,000/- with proportionate interest shall remain in fixed deposit in
the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai initially for a period of three years under reinvestment scheme. The second claimant, as and when
she becomes major, can file necessary application for declaring her status as major and on such declaration being made, the second claimant shall
also be permitted to withdraw her share of the compensation with interest accrued as on that date from the fixed deposit. The other directions of
the Tribunal shall remain.
These appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in C.M.A. No. 3339 of 2009 is closed.