IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.10. 2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3264 of 2008 and M.P.No. 1 of 2008 ....... 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at Head Quarters Road, Coimbatore 641 018. 2. V. Rajamanickam ... Appellants/Respondents 2 & 3 vs. 1. Smt. Sajana 2. R. Muthukumar 3. Smt. Palaniammal 4. Minor Sreenidhi rep. by guardian mother Smt. Sajana 5. K. Shanmugasundaram ... Respondents/Petitioner 1 to 4 & Respondent-1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.3.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1434 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional & district Judge and Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C.Act Cases), Coimbatore. For appellant : Mr. M.Rajasekhar For Respondents : No Appearance ------- JUDGMENT The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 24.3.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1434 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional & district Judge and Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C.Act Cases), Coimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 5.3.2004. The deceased Sridhar, aged 23 years, Supervisor in a knitting company in Tiruppur, was riding a two wheeler when he was hit by a bus insured with the appellant- insurance company and in that accident, the said Sridhar died. 3. The wife aged about 20 years, father aged 51 years, mother aged 45 years and minor daughter aged 2 years have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- p.m. 4. On behalf of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Senthil Kumar, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. To prove the income of the deceased, co-employees of the deceased were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. Documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Exs.P2 and P3 are the copy of the M.V.I. Reports. Ex.P4 is the copy of the rough sketch. Ex.P5 is the copy of the final report. Ex.P6 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.P7 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate. Ex.P9 is the copy of the identity card. Ex.P10 is the appointment order given to the deceased. Ex.P11 is the salary certificate. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who is responsible for the accident and death the liability fixed of the appellant insurance company is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph 10 in answer to point No.3. As per Ex.P6 post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was taken as 23 years and the Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the monthly income was claimed as Rs.5,000/- p.m. and the part time income was stated to be Rs.3,000/- p.m. The Tribunal, based on Exs.P10 and P11 salary certificates, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-p.m. and the annual income at Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3 rd towards personal expenses, the annual loss of pecuniary benefits was taken as Rs.24,000/-. By applying multiplier of 17, the total pecuniary loss to dependents was determined at Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-) In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.4,08,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 15,000/- 4 Transport to hospital Rs. 1,500/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs. 3,500/- Total Rs.4,51,000/- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that 17 multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the same has to be reduced. 9. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 and The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC) Wherein the Supreme Court held thus in paragraph 13 to 15 as follows:- "13. In G.M.Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631, it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequently be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22, appears to be appropriate. In fact in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22, after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. (See:New India Assurance Co. ltd. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ v. Charlie and Another, 2005(10) SCC 720. (emphasis supplied) 14. The above position was highlighted in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors., 2006(6) SCC 249; Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v. K.I. Bindu, 2005(8) SCC 473; T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. - v. S.Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236; Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Lasman Iyer, 2003(8)SCC 731; State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2003(7) SCC 484; The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., 2007(2) SCALE 227; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendar & Ors. JT 2006(10) SC 234. 10. In such view of the above, considering the age of the deceased, who was 23 years old, leaving behind a young widow and parents, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the quantum of solace by way of the award passed by the Tribunal as also the interest at 7.5% since the accident happened in the year 2005 and the award is of the year 2007. 11. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District & Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C.Act Cases), Coimbatore. + 1 CC To Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Advocate SR NO.59839 + 1 CC To Mr.V.Thillaisamy, Advocate SR NO.59974 CMA No. 3264 of 2008 CK {CO} TP/15.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/