IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.11.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR CMA No. 3332 of 2008 ........ United India Insurance Company Ltd., Pudusampallai Raman Nagar Post, Mettur Dam. .. Appellant/ 2nd respondent Vs. 1.Manimegalai 2. Minor Sivakumar rep. By his next friend and mother Manimegalai/ first petitioner 3.Semmalai 4.Govindammal 5.V. Latha (5th Respondent herein was set exparte in the above OP.61/05 before Lower Court hence notice to her may be dispensed with) .. Respondents/Petitioners/ Ist respondent Petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 22.9.2006 in MCOP No. 61 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (Sub Judge), Sankagiri. For Appellant : Mr. K. Suryanarayanan For Respondents : N.S. Sivakumar R1 – R4 R5 – notice dispenses with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT The Insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.9.2006 in MCOP No. 61 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (Sub Judge), Sankagiri. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 5.3.2005. The deceased Murugan, 28 years old, working as a lorry cleaner was signaling the driver to reverse the vehicle. At that point of time, the driver reversed the vehicle at high speed and hit the said Murugan and in that accident, Murugan died . The wife aged 29 years, minor son aged 1 ½ years and the father and mother are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation stating that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim petition, the first petitioner, wife of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the driving licence. Ex.A4 is the copy of the insurance policy. Ex.A5 is the legalheirship certificate. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, one Venkatesan was examined as R.W.1. Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1. 4. The Tribunal held that the death of Murugan was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver and the insurance company was made liable to compensate the claimants and such finding is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The issue relating to compensation was decided in Paragraphs 17 and 18 in answer to point No.2. The Tribunal, in the absence of specific evidence, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and age was determined at 28 years based on Ex.A2 post mortem certificate. The Tribunal adopted 18 multiplier. A sum equalent to 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of pecuniary benefits was determined in a sum of Rs. 5,75,640/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 5,75,640/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the son and parents Rs. 40,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 2,500/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 6,30,640/- 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the death of 28 year old lorry cleaner, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier 18 and erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-p.m. The employer was not examined and no document in proof was filed. He pleaded for reduction on multiplier based on the decision reported in in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 and in The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC). 7. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand justified the award and stated that among the claimants, the wife is 29 years old and the minor son is 1 ½ years. The bread winner of the family died leaving the claimants in penury. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is just and reasonable. The accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in 2006. The claimants are yet to realise the benefit of the order of the Tribunal. 8. The cost of living and the rise in price of goods, inflation will eat away the benefit arising out of the compensation if not given in time. As far as the multiplier to be adopted in a given case, the Apex Court in the decision reported in In 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC) the Supreme Court held 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 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. 15. Considering the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier would be 12. The income fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction for personal expenses do not warrant any interference. Worked out on that basis, the entitlement of the loss of income is Rs.5,76,000/-. The other expenses awarded remain unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the claimants is fixed at Rs.6,00,000/-. It would be appropriate to fix the rate of interest at 7.5% instead of 9% as done by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court." 9. Applying the principles as in the above stated decisions of the Apex Court and considering the lump sum payment that will go to the claimants, the claimants will be entitled to reasonable compensation based on multiplier of 16 as against 18. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the income of Rs.4,000/- p.m. as it is reasonable. The accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The deceased was supporting the family consisting of wife, minor son and parents. Therefore, the loss of pecuniary benefits stands modified to Rs.5,12,000/- (Rs.4000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 16 =Rs.5,12,000/-) Other amounts are not in dispute and they are confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 5,75,640/- Rs. 5,12,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the son and parents Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 2,500/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 6,30,640/- Rs. 5,67,000/- 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous- appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5,67,000/- from Rs.6,30,640/-. (ii) Pursuant to the order of this Court, a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- has been deposited. (iii) The claimants will be entitled to compensation in the following manner:- Out of the award amount of Rs. 5,67,000/- the Wife will be entitled to withdraw a Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and costs. The claimants 2 and 3 /father and mother are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- each with interest. The second claimant minor son is entitled to the balance amount with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) The share of the minor 2nd respondent/2nd claimant shall be invested in any nationalised bank proximate to the place of the residence of the first respondent/first claimant for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minor attains majority. The mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest in respect of the share of the minor once in three months directly from the bank and for the said purpose the first respondent/first claimant shall open a savings bank account on the same branch and the interest amount shall be transferred to the account to be maintained by the mother. (v) The nationalised bank to which the amount will be deposited, shall intimate to the first respondent/first claimant of such deposit and confirm the same to the Tribunal that the first claimant has been duly informed. The Tribunal to inform the bank accordingly. (vi) Since the deposit is in the case of minor, the Tribunal is directed to send a report containing the details of the deposit to the High Court on such deposit. (vii) There will be no order as to cost. (viii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Ra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge), Sankagiri. 2. The Section officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. K. Suryanarayanan, Advocate, SR No.62151 + 1 cc to Mr. N. S. Sivakumar, Advocate, SR No.61533 BV(CO) SR/11.2.2009 CMA No. 3332 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/