IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.03.2008 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN C.M.A. No.408 of 2007 and M.P.No.3 of 2007 The Manager National Insurance Co., Ltd., Motor T.P.Cell, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai – 52. ..... Appellant Vs. 1. Tmt. Muniamma W/o. Sriramulu 2. Mr.Ganesh @ Narasimhalu S/o. Sriramulu 3. Minor Radha D/o. Sriramulu 4. Tmt.Nadibamma 5. Mr.Ellaiya Chetty ..... Respondents Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.763 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Thiruvallur. -------- For Appellant : Mr. J.Chandran For Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan for R1 to R4 J U D G M E N T This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.04.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.763 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the wife of the deceased Sriramulu, who met with a motor accident and died on 25.11.2002 at 11.30 a.m at Chitoor Road, near Pallipattu bus stand. As per the case of the respondents, on the said date, while the deceased Sriramulu was walking on the left hand side of the road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 21 B 5553 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the husband of the respondent Sriramulu sustained grievous injuries and died. The respondents 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased Sriramulu, the fourth respondent is the mother of the deceased. The owner of the lorry has been arrayed as the fifth respondent. 3. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the first respondent was examined as P.W.1, apart from two other witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3. The FIR registered by the police was marked as Ex.A.1 and Postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.A.3. After the death of the deceased, who had been admitted in the hospital, the police altered the provisions of law, for which a report was prepared and sent to the Judicial Magistrate and the copy of the same has been marked as Ex.A.2. The copy of the report of the Motor Inspector has been marked as Ex.A.4. The copy of the charge sheet was marked as Ex.A.5. The driver of the lorry was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, which is not in dispute. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, the negligence against the lorry has been established. 4. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the deceased Sriramulu was a plumber-cum-painter and he was getting an income of Rs.300/- per day. Ex.A.7, Salary Certificate was also produced to that effect. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence available on record has held that the deceased could have earned at Rs.3000/- per month, out of which, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and accordingly, per month, he could have spent Rs.2,000/- to his dependents and family members and accordingly, per annum, it could have been computed at Rs.24,000/-. The trial court, applying the multiplier 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has computed the compensation at Rs.3,84,000/-, apart from Rs.15,000/- towards consortium for the first petitioner, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the first petitioner and Rs.5,000/- for the loss of love and affection for children, respondents 2 and 3 and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,69,000/- to the respondents 1 to 4, dependents of the deceased. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per Section 163 A, whereby the correct multiplier is stated as 13 for a person died above the age of 45 years, but not exceeding 50 years. In the instant case, as per the postmortem certificate and the evidence available on record, Sriramulu, husband of the first respondent died at the age of 48 years. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the correct multiplier applicable is only 13 under the Motor Vehicles Act and not 16. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased decided at Rs.3,000/- p.m and after 1/3rd, computing the same per year at Rs.24,000/- is quite reasonable, since the correct multiplier is only 13, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents 1 to 4, being the dependents are entitled to get compensation at Rs.3,12,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 contended that the compensation awarded for funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/- was very meagre and considering the same, it has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, but to meet the ends of justice, considering the decision in other similar cases, this Court find it reasonable to enhance the amount towards funeral expenses at Rs.8,000/-. 8. This Court is of the view that there is no error of infirmity with regard to the compensation awarded in the other heads and accordingly, towards loss of income, by applying 13 multiplier, it is computed at Rs.3,12,000/-. For funeral expenses, I find it reasonable to award Rs.8,000/-. In other respects, as decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, compensation is awarded at Rs.80,000/- and totally a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh only) is ordered to be paid instead of Rs.4,69,000/- to the respondents 1 to 4. The trial court has awarded interest at 9% p.a. Considering the latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn Ltd., vs. S.Rajapriya, reported in 2005 ACJ 1441, the Tribunal should have awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. Accordingly, the interest payable for the award amount is modified to 7.5% p.a. 9. In the above facts and circumstances, the appellant is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh) to the respondents 1 to 4 with 7.5% interest. The first respondent, who has lost his husband at younger age is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh) towards consortium in addition to her share. The second and third respondent each are entitled to get Rs.75,000/-. The fourth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, mother of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.50,000/-. Each one is entitled to get proportionate interest. The share of the minor third respondent shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank at Thiruvalluvar till she attains majority and the second respondent, mother and guardian is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest for the benefit of the said minor, once in three months. 10. The appellant is directed to pay the balance amount, if any payable as per this Judgment and if there is any excess amount, the appellant is entitled to get back the same. 11. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar tsvn To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Thiruvallur. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate Sr 13522 +1cc to Mr.R.Neelakandan, Advocate Sr 13171 MDR (CO) km/19.8. C.M.A .No.408 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/