IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.11.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.NO. 1493 OF 2007 ........ M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch II Madurai Branch, No. 8-A Yanaikkal Street, Madurai. .. Appellant/ 3rd respondent Vs. 1.Ponraj Naidu 2. Jayalakshmi 3.Ramesh 4. Raju Thomas .. Respondents/ Petitioners/ respondents 1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated17.12.2003 in MCOP No. 92 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Udumalpet. For Appellant : Ms. N.B. Surekha For Respondents : Mr. K. Govi Ganesan – R1 & R2 Not ready – R3 No Appearance - R4 JUDGMENT Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated17.12.2003 in MCOP No. 92 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Udumalpet.. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 12.01.2001. The deceased Santhakrishnan, aged 21 years employed as a godown incharge in M/s. Subbu Association, Udumalpet, was riding a motor cycle. A van insured with the appellant coming from the opposite direction hit the motor cycle and in that accident, the said Santhakrishnan sustained grievous injuries on the head, right leg and other parts of the body. He was taken to Government Hospital, Madurai, where he died. The father aged about 68 years and the mother aged 55 years filed the claim petition for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- stating that the deceased son was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim petition, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Mohan, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2 and one Chandrasekaran, employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was let in by the appellant/ respondents before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Van and the liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing in the appeal is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation in paragraph 6 in answer to point No.2. To prove the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. Ex.A7 was marked. However, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,900/- p.m. The deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and that is not in dispute as the same is supported by the documentary evidence on record including the post mortem certificate. The contribution to the dependants /parents was taken as Rs.2,600/-p.m. and the annual contribution was fixed at Rs.31,200/-. The Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier based on the age of the deceased and determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs. 5,30,400/- (Rs.31,200/- x 17 = Rs.5,30,400/-). In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.5,30,400/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.5,52,400/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation stating that the Tribunal erred in adopting 17 multiplier in the case of death of a bachelor earning member. She also stated that the father is aged 65 years and the mother is 55 years old and the possibility of the deceased getting married and the benefits getting reduced should have been considered. She relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants pleaded that meager amount has been granted towards loss of love and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affection to the parents and no amount has been granted for transport and loss of estate. He justified the award. 8. The accident in this case happened in the year 2001. The deceased was 21 years bachelor earning member. There is no dispute with regard to the income of the deceased. The contention is with regard to the multiplier adopted for determining the compensation. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant the contribution of the deceased will not be available to the claimants/parents for the rest of their life time in the same proportion as the likelihood of the deceased getting married is always there. Keeping that in mind and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar's case, and also considering the age of the parents, the proper multiplier to be applied in this case is 10 as against 17 adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the parents will be Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.31,200/- x 10 = Rs.3,12,000/-) The claimants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of love affection on the death of the deceased . They are also entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.5,30,400/- Rs.3,12,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 35,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.5,52,400/- Rs.3,59,000/- 9. Insofar as the interest is concerned, since the accident happened in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2003, the interest stands reduced to 7.5% from 9% p.a. following the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya). 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i)The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,59,000/- from Rs.5,52,400/-. (ii) The interest is reduced to 7.5% from 9% p.a. (iii) It is stated that entire amount has been deposited as per the order of this Court dated 11.7.2007. The first claimant father is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,59,000/- with interest and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the second claimant/ mother is entitled to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and costs. (iv) The appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount in deposit after settling the claimants. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Udumalpet. 1 cc To Mr.N.B.Surekha, Advocate, SR.61498 CMA No. 1493 of 2007 RSI(CO) SRA(09/02/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/