IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3629 of 2008 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2008 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent vs. 1.Chinnathambi 2.Ponnamma 3.Murugan 4.Saraswathi 5.Selvam (4th and 5th respondents were set exparte before the trial Court in the above O.P., Hence notice to them may be dispensed with) ... Respondents/ Claimants and Respondents 1 and 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 30.12.2005 passed in MACTOP.NO.130 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Sub Court)Attur. For appellant : Mr.S.Jayasankar For respondents 1 to 3 : M/s.D.Shivakumaran,V.Sekar and R.Ezhilarasan JUDGMENT The New India Assurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 30.12.2005 passed in MACTOP.NO.130 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Sub Court)Attur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 14.7.2002. The deceased Deva aged about 22 years, a Bore well rig helper died in the accident whiel travelling in a lorry. Due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, the deceased Deva fell down from the lorry and the lorry ran over him. In this connection, a case was registered against the driver of the lorry. The father of the deceased aged about 55 years, mother aged 50 years and brother aged 25 years filed a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the father was examined as PW1, one Ganesan was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. Ex.A1 is the first information report and Ex.A2 is the copy of post mortem certificate. On behalf of the appellant, one Rajkumar, Assistant Manager of the second respondent was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. 4. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence on the part of the lorry driver, who is responsible for the accident and the death and consequential liability fixed on the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal in this case fixed the age of the deceased as 22 years, based on Ex.A2, post mortem certificate. As far as income is concerned, in the absence of any specific document, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.2,200/-per month and the annual income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.26,400/- . The Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier and fixed the total pecuniary loss at Rs.4,48,000/- i.e.Rs.26,400 x 17. From this 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the pecuniary loss was fixed at Rs.2,99,200/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation: Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Pecuniary loss Rs.2,99,200/- 2 Transport Rs. 2,800/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of Love and affection Rs. 14,000/- Total Rs. 3,21,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,21,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation stating that 17 multiplier in the case of deceased bachelor earning member is higher. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand contended that the income of the deceased claimed at Rs.5,000/- has been arbitrarily reduced to Rs.2,200/- per month by the Tribunal and therefore the compensation need not be interfered with only on the ground that the multiplier is higher. He further pleaded that a meagre amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection to the mother, father and brother. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum for the following reasons: The accident in this case happened in the year 2002, the deceased was aged about 22 years old. He was working as Bore-well rig helper. In this case, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.2,200/- rejecting the plea that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. Much reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004(1) Law Weekly 3 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of B.Anandhi -vs.- R.Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 to state that even an agriculturist or Coolie will earn a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and the income fixed in this case is low. Since the accident happened in the year 2002, the Tribunal should have fixed the income atleast at Rs.3,500/- per month as the deceased is a helper in Borewell Rig. If the income is increased based on the minimum wages, rise in price, cost of living etc., the compensation can be justified as appropriate even if the multiplier is found fault with. Therefore, since the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is very low, the marginally higher multiplier will compensate for the same. The amount granted by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection to the father, mother and brother is very meagre. In view of the fact that the income of the deceased is lower and meagre amount has been granted for love and affection, the quantum of compensation does not require any further reduction, only on the ground that the multiplier is higher, as also the interest at 7.5%, as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and award was passed in the year 2005.\ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There will be no order as to costs. The appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. VJY To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Subordinate Judge)Attur. 1 cc to Mr.S. Jayasankar, Advocate, SR. 65491 1 cc to Mr.d. Shivakumaran, Advocate, Sr. 65611 C.M.A.No.3629 of 2008 CK (CO) kk 2/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/