IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3517 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The National Insurance Company Ltd., No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.D.Kamala, 2.P.Desingu, 3.S.M.Saravanan. ...Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 13.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2488 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-V), Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 13.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2488 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-V), Chennai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 28.3.2002. The deceased Praveen Kumar, 10 year old student, was attempting to cross the road, when the tanker lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the boy. In that accident the boy suffered multiple injuries and died. The appellant is the insurer of the tanker lorry. The mother aged 26 years and the father aged 32 years claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. The following documents were marked on the side of the claimants:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P-1 is the copy of F.I.R., Ex.P-2 is the rough sketch, Ex.P-3 is the Post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-4 is the death certificate, Ex.P-5 is the legal heir certificate and Ex.P-6 is the bona fide school certificate, No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and the liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimants is not disputed and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased was taken as 10 years based on Ex.P-4 school certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and considering the age of the deceased and that of the parents, who were 26 years and 32 years respectively, by adopting 15 multiplier granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation on the death of the 10 year old student. Compensation under conventional heads were also granted. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 9%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents Rs.2,25,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs. 10,000/- 3 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Funeral and other incidental expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.2,45,000/- 7. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier 15 adopted in this case is higher side and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- is excessive. He therefore, pleaded for reduction. 8. This court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) In Manju Devi and another – Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609(SC) = 2004(2) TNMAC 262(SC), on the death of 13 years old boy in the accident happened on 2.7.1998, the Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. Paragraph 3 reads thus:- "3. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000/-" In the present case, the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007. The cost of living, the price rise of commodities and goods is increasing day-by-day. The value of money is also fluctuating and it is devalued. The parents/claimants have not received the compensation so far in spite of the fact that the accident happened in the year 2002. (ii) The Tribunal granted meagre sum towards loss of love and affection to the parents and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and other incidental expenses. (iii) Therefore, the total compensation for Rs.2,45,000/- does not appear to be unreasonable or excessive. This court is not inclined to interfere with the total compensation as also the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 9. Finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Counsel for the appellant prays https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the award as ordered by the Tribunal. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V), (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Vadivel, Advocate. S.R.No.63870. Judgment in C.M.A.No.3517 of 2008 CK (CO) GSK 23.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/