IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.01.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN C.M.A.No. 2605 of 2006 National Insurance Company Ltd., 10-40K, Rajajee Street, Kangeyam. ... Appellant ..Vs.. 1.Roobina Banu 2.Minor Mohammed Ansari, Rep. By G/M Roobina Banu 3.T. Vasanthamani .. Respondents respondent Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 05.03.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, FTC-V), Tirupur. For Appellant : M/s. Arunkumar For Respondents : Mr. S.S. Swaminathan (R-1 and R-2) O R D E R The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / National Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2002, dated 05.03.2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Tiruppur. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows :- On 11.11.2001, at about 13.45 hours, the deceased Anvar Ali was proceeding on a moped bearing Registration No.TN37-F-1527 on the Tirupur Town to Kamaraj Road, when at that time, the mini-bus bearing Registration No.TN39-O-9988 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on the same direction and dashed against the moped, as a result, the rider succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the legal-heirs of the deceased had filed the claim petition for compensation i.e., a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The second respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. At the time of the accident, the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence, as well as the driver of the mini-bus was not possessing a valid driving licence, besides the claim amount is excessive. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i) Who was responsible for the said accident? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation, if so, what is the quantum of compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimants, four witnesses had been examined and five documents were marked viz., Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Postmortem report, Ex.P3-Death certificate of the deceased, Ex.P4-Legal heirs certificate of the deceased and Ex.P5-Birth certificate of the second claimant. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 11.11.2001 her husband met with an accident and expired. Actually, her husband was proceeding on his moped on the Kamraj Road, Tirupur, at that time, the first respondent's vehicle driven by its driver in a reckless manner in the same direction and dashed against the deceased. PW2 an eyewitness and PW4 also an eyewitness had both spoken in one voice about the accident. PW1 further stated that she is the wife of the deceased and the second claimant is the minor son of the deceased. Before the accident, her husband was an operator in a private company and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, after his personal expenditure. 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,07,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as compensation. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,07,000/- after fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and adopted a multiplier as “17”, which is on the higher side and accordingly awarded the compensation which is not appropriate. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards 'consortium', which is also on the higher side. 10.Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased was an operator under a private company and was receiving a regular income, after his personal expenses being met, the deceased had contributed a sum of Rs.4,000/- to his family. The second claimant, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a one month old infant, as such the second claimant is entitled to receive maximum compensation under the head of love and affection. As well as the first claimant being a young widow of the deceased is also entitled to receive an adequate compensation under the head of consortium. Besides, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of 'funeral expenses', which is on the lower side. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount is on the higher side, considering the dependency, age, income and occupation of the deceased, therefore, this Court modifies the compensation as follows:- Rs.4,76,000/- for loss of dependency; (Rs.3,500 x 12 x 17 x 1/3 x 2) Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards consortium. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,96,000/- and this amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 12.On 20.09.2006, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount with accrued interest thereon and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Tirupur, Further, this Court permitted the claimants to withdraw 50% of the amount with interest and costs without furnishing any security. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant/ Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount, as observed above to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Tirupur within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such a deposit being made, it open to the first claimant to withdraw her modified apportioned share amount, as fixed by the Tribunal with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Tirupur, after filing memo along with this order. The minor share amount to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank in close proximity to the residence of the claimants under the accumulated deposit scheme and the deposit certificate to be handed over to the first claimant i.e., the mother of the child. The deposit period will remain until the child reaches adulthood and this arrangement will not be subjected to any changes. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Tirupur, made in M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2002, dated 05.03.2004 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar r n s To 1. The Additional District Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal FTC-V), Tirupur. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras (with records) + 1 cc to M/s.S. Arunkumar, Sr.4682/11 + 1 cc to M/s. S.S. Swaminathan, SR.3810 C.M.A.No. 2605 of 2006 NR(CO) Eu 6.6.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/