IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.01.2009 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.170 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The National Insurance Company Ltd., No.751 Anna Salai, Chennai.2. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1.C.Kalaiselvi 2. C.Prabhu 3.Minor C.Priya 4.S.Kalyani ... Respondents 5.M.Pappathi ... Respondent/petitioner/ I respondent . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 01.08.2003 made in O.P No.372 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.4,) Poonamallee. For Appellant : Mr. S.Arunkumar For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. V.K.Rajagopalan J U D G M E N T The National Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 01.08.2003 made in O.P No.372 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.4,) Poonamallee. 2. Respondents appeared through counsel. At the request of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is a case of fatal. The accident in this case happened on 08.07.2000 at 11.40 hours. The deceased Chandrasekar aged about 43 years a brick works owner and agriculturists was riding a motor cycle and was proceeding near Vadapalani on the 100 ft. road. He was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TN-28-X-2610 insured with the appellant. In that accident, he died. The wife aged about 35 years, two minor children aged 16 and 14 years respectively and mother aged 70 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased is Rs.7,500/-per month. 4. In support of the claim, the son who travelled along with the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the mother was examined as P.W.2. One Mohan was examined as P.W.3 and the Doctor was examined as P.W.4. In the case of injury claim Documents Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. Ex.P1 is the Copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Accident Register. Ex.P3 is the Discharge Summary, Ex.P4 is the Medical Bills. Ex.P5 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills. Exs.P7 to Ex.P11 are the Medical Expenses and Medical Bills series, Ex.P12 is the copy of the charge sheet, Ex.P13, is the Judgment copy before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ex.P14 is the Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P15 is the Legal heirship Certificate, Ex.P16 is the tax receipt paid with regard to the agricultural land of the deceased. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 5. Finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who caused the fatal accident and the liability fixed by the insurance company is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding of the Tribunal stands confirmed. 6.The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- taking note of the agricultural income and the income by way of manufacture of bricks. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting multiplier of '15' the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards pecuniary loss. The Tribunal also granted compensation towards loss of love and affection to the first respondent in a sum of Rs.5,000/-. To the second and third respondent Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/-each) was granted for loss of love and affection. In all the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- with 9% interest. 7. In appeal, it is contended that the income of the deceased who died in an accident in the year 2000 as brick works owner and also an agriculturalist is on the higher side. The multiplier is also on the higher side. Therefore, appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest also. 8.Learned counsel appearing for the claimant stated that the documents relating to income by agriculture and the amounts paid to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Panchayat to support the business of brick manufacturing is ample proof of higher income of the deceased. He further stated that meagre amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to two minor children and a paltry sum was granted for the loss of consortium to the wife. Further, no amount has been granted for funeral expenses and for loss of estate which is normally given in these cases. 9.The accident in this case happened on 08.07.2000. The deceased was aged 43 years. He was doing brick manufacturing business and was also engaged in agriculture. The said plea is supported by documents Exs.B16 and B17. In so far as agricultural income is concerned, following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi vs. Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.Sathasivam, J. as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/-per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. 10.In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/-per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2000. In this case, the deceased was also engaged in manufacture of bricks and that is supporting by documentary evidence. Considering the same, the income can be fixed at Rs.5,000/-per month. The higher income of Rs.7,500/-fixed by the Tribunal is not support by any clear evidence on record and there is no good reasoning for the same. Therefore, the income of the deceased stands modified to Rs.5,000/- per month as against Rs.7,500/-fixed by the Tribunal. The deceased is aged 43 years. Even as per the second schedule to Section 163 of the M.V.Act the multiplier would be '15'. The deceased was in his prime age. His son and daughter are aged 16 and 14. The wife aged about 35 years. Therefore, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is justified. Therefore, pecuniary loss in this case will be Rs.5,000/- X 12 = Rs.60,000/- - 1/3 = 40,000 X 15 = Rs.6,00,000/-. The wife would be entitled to a reasonable compensation towards loss of consortium on the death of her husband. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to her. The two minor children would be entitled to Rs.20,000/-each for loss of love and affection. For funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- is awarded and for loss of Estate Rs.5,000/-. The award therefore stands modified as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Pecuniary Loss Rs.9,00,000/ - Rs.6,00,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to wife Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection the the children Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses --- Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of Estate --- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.9,25,000/ - Rs.6,75,000/- 11. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5% in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya). 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.6,75,000/- from Rs.9,25,000/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% stands reduced to 7.5% p.a. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs. (v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Smi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.4,) Poonamallee. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 CC To Mr. V.K.Rajagopalan, Advocate, SR NO.3225 CMA No. 170 of 2009 ka(co) pmk/13.2.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/