IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.2581 of 2006 And M.P.No.1 of 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Officers Line, C.S.I. Complex, Vellore. ... Appellant/IInd Respondent. vs. 1.Selvarani 2.Karthick 3.Lakshminarayanan 4.Valliammal 5.Krishnappa ... Respondents/Petitioners & 1st Respondent. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 again the Judgment and Decree made in MACTOP.No.284 of 2004 on the file of t Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Vellore dated 07.03.2006. For appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For respondents : Mr.V.Parivallal for R1 to R4 JUDGMENT The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against t grant of an award of Rs.8,09,160/-, in respect of death of a 52 years o employee in MCOP.No.284 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Motor Accide Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Vellore. 2.The accident is admitted, liability is admitted and only t quantum is questioned. Even on the quantum, the main ground of attack w that the lower court without taking into consideration that the pers would retire at the age of 58 has applied the multiplier theory througho whereas after retirement, his salary would be reduced and the pensi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would be only 50%. This calculation has not been done by the Court belo This is the main contention raised by the learned counsel for t appellant. Hence, the appeal. 3.The learned counsel for the claimants contended that even though may retire, that does not mean that amount is lost. Nowadays, the pensi is almost 60% and he would have also earned outside after retiremen Hence, if this point is taken into consideration, the calculation made correct and he would have earned as that of his time in servic Therefore, the award granted by the Tribunal is fair, reasonable a correct and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 4.Heard both parties. The short point for consideration in t appeal is whether the amount granted by the court below is fai reasonable and correct. 5.The accident is admitted, liability is admitted. The deceased aged about 52 years old. He was employed in a Government Aided Priva College at Vellore. It is a permanent job. He was earning Rs.9,070/- p month. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 are the salary certificates and Ex.P.6 S.S.L.C. book of the deceased Loganathan. P.W.2 is the employer who h been examined for the proof of salary as well as the age. Since it very clear that the deceased is a teacher, it is also very clear that would have retired at the age of 58 and even P.W.2 has certified that t deceased would have retired on 30.06.2010. Therefore, it is very cle that upto 30.06.2010, he would been earning the full amount of Rs.9,070 along with any future increments or enhancement. Thereafter, he wou have been getting only the pension which is almost equivalent to only 5 in the full amount. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learn counsel for the appellant, the lower court applied the correct multipli of 11 but automatically the claimant will not get the full amount. 6.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Cou reported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 73 in the case of National Insurance Compa Limited Vs. Shanthi Pandiyan and others, it is very clear that the Cou has to take into account the fact of retirement and thereafter 50% of t income has to be fixed. If the calculation is worked out according to t above referred decision, then the amount works out as follows: Since the deceased was 52 years at the time of the occurrence, for t first six years upto the date of retirement, the original salary Rs.9,000/- per month has to be taken. Hence, deducting 1/3 towards h personal expenses, the contribution to his family will come to Rs.6,000/ Hence applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of income for the first s years comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 X 6) For the rest 5 years 50% of Rs.9,000/- is taken as the pension per month, it works out Rs.4,500/- and if 1/3 is deducted towards his personal income, t contribution to his family will be Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence for t rest 5 years the loss of income works out to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.3,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12 X 5). Hence, the total loss of income will be Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.1,80,000/- = Rs.6,12,000/-. Hence, the sum of Rs.7,98,160/- grant by the lower court towards loss of income is reduced to Rs.6,12,000/-. 7.Under other heads, the lower court has granted a sum of Rs.2,000 towards cremation which I feel is on the lower side. Hence, it increased to Rs.5,000/- as against the sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by t lower court. The lower court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards lo and affection, which I feel is fair, reasonable and correct. The low court has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, a s of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head loss of consortium. At th point, the learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that the body w transported from Thirupati to Vellore. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards transport charges. 8.In the result, the award amount is modified as follows: 1.for loss of income : Rs. 6,12,000/- 2.for transport charges : Rs. 5,000/- 3.for cremation : Rs. 5,000/- 4.for loss of love and affection : Rs. 5,000/- 5.for loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/- ----------------- Total : Rs. 6,37,000/- ----------------- 9.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed reducing t compensation from Rs.8,09,160/- to Rs.6,37,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Thirty Seven Thousand Only) along with the interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date deposit of compensation. 10.It is represented that the appellant-Insurance Company h deposited only 50% of the original award amount. Hence, the appellan Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw t amount, less the amount already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, t connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. // True Copy // Sub Asst. Registrar. pri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Vellore. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai-104. + One CC to Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate (CC SR.NO.11763) + Two CC to Mr.V.Parivallal Advocate (CC SR.No.11666) C.M.A.No.2581 of 200 An M.P.No.1 of 200 GV (CO) PR (17.5.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/