IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.(NPD)No.3465 of 2008 United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., Post Box No.34, C.G.Complex, No.139,Kumaran Road, Tiruppur. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Lakshmanan 2.Ummaiyal 3.Ramasamy ... Respondents /1 & 2 Petitioners and 1st Respondent (3rd respondent exparte in Lower Court and hence notice may be dispensed with.) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 18.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.234 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore. For appellant : Mr.Ismail for Mr.M.B.Gopalan ----- JUDGMENT The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the Judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No. 234 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 24.2.2005. The deceased Ramanathan said to be 26 years old, a bachelor was travelling on a two wheeler when a lorry insured with the appellant driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver hit the two wheeler and in that accident, the said Ramanathan was thrown out of the vehicle. He sustained grievous injury. He was taken to K.G.Hospital, Arulpuram for the first day and then he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitted in K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore. He died on 25.2.2005 i.e. next day. Postmortem was conducted at CMC Hospital Coimbatore. 3. The father, aged about 50 years and the mother aged about 45 years, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceased bachelor son was Rs.7,000/- per month. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Merchandiser in Stanefab Apparels, Tiruppur.. 4. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. Rajamanickam, an eye witness was examined as P.W.2 and Saravanan, an eye witness was examined as PW3. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report, Ex.A2 is the Postmortem Certificate, Ex.A3 is the Death Certificate, Ex.A4 is the Legal Heir certificate, EX.A5 is the Death summary of the deceased issued by the K.G. Hospital, Ex.A6 is the salary certificate of the deceased, Ex.A7 is the Diploma certificate obtained by the deceased in 1998 in Textile Technology, Ex.A8 is the Certificate for Training undergone from Chennai Central Leather Research Computer Institute Aided Design of Garments, Ex.A9 is the Certificate of the deceased for his participation in National Cadet Corps, Ex.A10 is the Driving Licence. PW2, the Accountant of the company in which the deceased was working, in his statement at the time of examination in chief marked documents as Exs.W.A1,W.A2 and W.A3. No document was marked or witness examined on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the respondent before the Tribunal. 5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, insured with the appellant insurance corporation and liability of the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. Hence, the same is confirmed. 6. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunal from Paragraph 8 onwards in answer to Point No.2. As per Ex.A2, Post Mortem certificate and Ex.A10, the driving licence , the age of the deceased was fixed as 26 years and that is not in dispute.Ex.A6 was marked by PW1 to show that the salary of the deceased in December 2004 was Rs.7,000/- Ex.A7 is a document to show that the deceased was qualified in Textile Technology. He also holds the certificate issued by the Central Leather Research Institute (Computer Aided design of garments) (Ex.A8). He also holds the certificate for having participated in National Service Scheme. The Accountant of the company M/s Stanfab Apparels was examined as PW2, through him documents Exs.WA1, WA2 and WA3 were marked. One document relates to authorisation given to the witness to depose before the Tribunal, Ex.WA2 relates to salary given to the deceased and Ex.WA3 relates to Attendance Register. It is also the statement of PW2 that the salary of the deceased was about Rs.7,000/- per month. An objection was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raised before the Tribunal that the Photo copy of the documents alone are filed and not the originals. Appellants does not dispute that the deceased was working in stanefab Apparels, Tiruppur and that is the finding of the Tribunal as well. The Tribunal however did not accept the plea that the income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- stating that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, taking into consideration his educational qualification supported by Exs.A7,8 and A9, the Tribunal fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal thereafter taking into consideration the relevant parameters like age of the claimants (i.e.) parents adopted 13 multiplier. After deducting 1/3 of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal granted the compensation with 7.5% interest per annum in the following manner: Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of incomeRs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/- (minus 1/3)i.e. Rs.24,000 = Rs.48,000 x 13 = Rs.6,24,000/- Rs.6,24,000/- 2 Loss of love affection to parents (Rs.15,000 x 2) Rs. 30,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 6,59,000 7. The counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction of quantum of compensation stating that the income of the deceased taken in this case is on the higher side. Therefore the compensation has to be reduced. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons: The deceased bachelor was aged about 26 years and the claimants father and mother are aged about 50 and 45 years respectively. The income of the deceased is supported by Ex.A6 salary certificate. The documents produced by one of the witness,the Accountant of Stanfab Apparels, Tiruppur are supporting documents to show that the deceased was in gainful employment. The deceased was technically qualified, both in textiles as well as leather technology including Design technology. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was working in an apparels manufacturing company in Tirupur, an Industrial hub of South India which is known for its high volume of exports, The income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/-p.m. cannot be said to be excessive. In fact there is no reason for rejection of the income as per Exhibit A6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242, the Multiplier of 13 adopted in this case is also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reduce the quantum of compensation, as also the interest at 7.5% p.a, as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and award passed in 2007. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the amount and on such deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar VJY To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.(NPD)No.3465 of 2008 SR(CO) SRA(06/02/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/