1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.952 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 M/s.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Loyala Building, P.B.No.23, First Floor, Salai Road, Dindigul. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Rajathi @ Ramathal 2.Minor Gowri 3.Minor S.Nallarasu .. Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners 1 to 3 (Minor 2 and 3 respondents are represented by their mother and guardian viz., first respondent Tmt.Rajathi @ Ramathal) 4.M/s.Pope Trust, People Organisation for People Education Trust, Kamatchi Nagar, Malaipatty Road, Thottanoothu (P), Dindigul. (R4 – Given up) .. 4th Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 22.03.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.350 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur. For Appellant .. Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For Respondents .. Mr.T.Selvakumaran 1 to 3 JUDGMENT The award dated 22.03.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.350 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur 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.350 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant and the remaining respondent have been shown as respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is stated in the petition that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Sadasivam and the remaining petitioners are their children. On 29.04.2007 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased has driven a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-47-M-1653 from north to south on Salem to Madurai By-pass Road. At that time, the vehicle of the first respondent bearing Registration No.TN-57-K-1461 has been driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, which has been driven by the deceased. Due to accident, he has sustained multiple injuries and subsequently he has been taken to Dr.Rajinikanth Hospital, Karur, where he succumbed to injuries. The vehicle, which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent and therefore 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 the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, whereas the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The petitioners have claimed excessive compensation and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,08,000/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of liability fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 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 not touched the manner as well as cause of accident and he challenged the quantum of compensation on the following grounds: (a) At the time of accident, the deceased has attained 55 years of age and he is having only three years of service and therefore the multiplier method adopted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is erroneous. (b) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without having sufficient evidence has added 20% as pay increase together with the monthly emoluments of the deceased and on that score also the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/petitioners has contended that even though the deceased has attained the age of 55, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted 11 multiplier and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly given 20% increase in monthly emoluments of the deceased and further the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly given some amount as agricultural income and therefore viewing from any angle, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal does not require any modification. 8. On the basis of the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct or the same requires interference? As per Ex.P.7, it is discernible to the effect that the deceased has attained the age of 55 at the time of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 accident and since the deceased has served as Village Administrative Officer, he is having three years of remaining service. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in Rajendra Kumar and others v. Rambhai and others reported in 2004(2) TN MAC 372 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with a similar question and ultimately found that multiplier should be adopted in case of death of a Government servant only on the basis of his remaining period of service. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in K.R.Madhusudhan and others v. Administrative Officer and another reported in 2011 ACJ 743, wherein also a similar question has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and ultimately found that even in case of death of a Government servant, multiplier can be adopted on the basis of his age. 11. Considering the fact that the decision in K.R.Madhusudhan and others v. Administrative Officer and another reported in 2011 ACJ 743 is the latest decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view to follow the same and therefore the first and foremost contention urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent does not hold good. 12. As per Ex.P.5, the monthly emoluments of the deceased is Rs.7,793/- and one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased comes to Rs.2,598/- and after deducting Rs.2,598/-, it comes to Rs.5,195/- per mensum and yearly it comes to Rs.62,340/-. 13. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 11 multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased and the same can be accepted and in that way it comes to Rs.6,85,740/-. On the side of the respondents 1 to 3/petitioners, Ex.P.4 has been marked, wherein it has been stated that Rs.83,477/- has been spent towards medical expenses. By way of adding Rs.83,477/-, it comes to Rs.7,69,217/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards consortium to the first petitioner. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection. Considering the fact that the first petitioner has given Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, this Court is of the view to give Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection for each remaining petitioners, except the first petitioner and in that way it comes to Rs.20,000/- and in aggregation it comes to Rs.8,09,217/- and to that extent the award in question is liable to be modified. 14. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.350 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur is modified as follows: The respondents 1 to 3/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.8,09,217/-. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To The District Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Selvakumaran, Advocate, SR No.31666 + 1 cc to Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate, SR No.31402 C.M.A(MD)No.952 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 13.09.2011 smn RJ/12.10.11 4p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/