1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.799 of 2011 M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. through its Branch Manager, Chennai. .. Appellant/Respondent No.2 Vs. 1. Gunavathi 2. Kannappan 3. Vijay 4. M/s.Karuppiah sons, G1, SPL Shubnvihar, No.57/27, Pachalla Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents No.1 to 4/ Petitioner 1 to 3 & Respondent No.1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 01.09.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. For Appellant .. Ms.P.Malini For Respondent .. Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Nos.1 to 3 For Respondent .. Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiyappan No.4 JUDGMENT The award dated 01.09.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that on 14.08.2004 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased has driven his bicycle on Kumbakonam- Parattai Main Road. At that time, the driver of the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 has driven the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-09-AF-5679 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and due to accident he sustained multiple injuries and subsequently passed away and he served as a mechanic and thereby earned Rs.4,000/- per mensum. The vehicle which caused the accident, has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that it is false to say that the driver of the lorry has caused the accident in question due to his rash and negligent driving. The deceased himself has invited the accident and the petitioners have claimed excessive compensation and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,34,000/- by way of compensation. Against the quantum, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has contended that the deceased is aged about 19 and he has not served as a mechanic, however the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/- per mensum, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the fact that the deceased is a bachelor has erroneously deducted one-third and as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 50% of the amount should be deducted towards his personal expenses and therefore the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has rightly passed the award in question and therefore the award in question need not be set aside. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/- per mensum and it has deducted one-third and ultimately fixed Rs.2,000/- per mensum. 9. Considering the fact that the deceased is a bachelor, 50% of the monthly income should be deducted and in that way, it comes to Rs.1,500/-. 10. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 16 multiplier. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ second respondent has contended that the age of the mother of the deceased has not been given and therefore multiplier should be given on the basis of the age of the parents, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased and on that basis also the award in question is liable to be modified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11. It is a settled principle of law that in fixing a multiplier, age of the deceased can also be taken into consideration on the basis of whichever is higher. Under the said circumstances, the multiplier fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct. 12. It has already been fixed that the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.1,500/- after deduction and yearly it comes to Rs.18,000/- and by way of adopting 16 multiplier, it comes to Rs.2,88,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/- towards love and affection of the petitioners. Considering the age of the deceased, this Court is of the view to award Rs.60,000/- towards love and affection. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same can be accepted and in aggregation the respondents 1 to 3/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,53,000/- and to that extent the award in question is liable to be modified. 13. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam is modified as follows: The respondents 1 to 3/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,53,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. +1 CC to M/s.P.Malini, Advocate (SR.No.26690) +1 CC to Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate (SR.No.26476) +1 CC to Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan, Advocate (SR.No.26331) C.M.A(MD)No.799 of 2011 05.08.2011 smn NSV/12.9.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/