IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3694 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 National Insurance Company Ltd., 165, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore-1. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Ramalingam, 2.Achiyammal, 3.D.Illangovan. ... 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 31.1.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore. For appellant : Mr.D.Baskaran For respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.N.Damodharan JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 31.1.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 20.3.2005. The deceased Pazhamalai, a driver by occupation, aged 28 years and a bachelor, was riding his motorcycle. He was hit by a car insured with the appellant and in that accident, the said Pazhamalai died. The father aged 60 years and the mother aged 50 years, filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs stating that their son was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Sivakumar, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A- 1 to A-7 were marked as detailed below:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R. dated 20.3.2005, Ex.A-2 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 23.3.2005, Ex.A-3 is the post-mortem certificate, Ex.A-4 is the copy of the insurance policy of the motorcycle for the period 19.1.2005 to 18.1.2006. Ex.A-5 is the copy of the driving licence of Mohammed Ali. Ex.A-6 is the legal heir certificate dated 1.6.2005 and Ex.A-7 is the driving licence in the name of deceased Pazhamalai. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the car insured with the appellant insurance company and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the appellant's counsel, and the same is confirmed. 6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with in paragraph 11 onwards in the award in answer to point No.2. The deceased was a bachelor earning member and was 28 years old at the time of accident. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, fixed the contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased bachelor and that of the claimants, the Tribunal adopted 13 multiplier. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/-). In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest 7.5% per annum:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the parents Rs.4,68,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents on the death of their son Rs. 10,000/- 3 Transport and funeral expenses Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs.4,85,000/- 7. In this appeal it is contended that if the age of the mother is taken, the proper multiplier should be 11 and not 13. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 and stated that the contribution by the deceased to the dependents will be reduced after the marriage and therefore, the Tribunal should have adopted lesser multiplier in this case as against 13. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants, who stated that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require any reduction. The parents are only aged 60 and 50 years respectively and their son died at very young age and meagre amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection. 9. The deceased is a bachelor earning member, driver by occupation and 28 years old. The income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- cannot be disputed in view of the Apex Court's decisions 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). 10. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the fact remains that the claimants are the father aged 60 years and the mother aged 50 years. The possibility of the deceased bachelor earning member getting married and the pecuniary benefits getting reduced to the parents is always there. In the case of bachelor earning member, higher multiplier as per schedule need not be adopted to grant compensation to the dependents, who are the parents, as the dependency will get reduced on marriage. The lump sum payment is another factor to be considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court as above, and taking note of the age of the claimants, the proper multiplier in this case will be 11 and not 13. There is no dispute with regard to income fixed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total pecuniary loss to the parents will be Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.3,96,000). The sum of Rs.10,000/-granted towards loss of love and affection to the father and mother is very low. The sum of Rs.7,000/- granted towards transport and funeral expenses is confirmed. The father and the mother will be entitled to further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 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 to the parents Rs.4,68,000/- Rs.3,96,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents on the death of their son Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 3 Transport and funeral expenses Rs. 7,000/- Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs.4,85,000/- Rs.4,23,000/- 12. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed since the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in January 2008. 13. Counsel for the appellant prays for eight weeks' time to deposit the balance award amount, and on such deposit, the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants prays for withdrawal. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as follows:- (i) The Award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.4,23,000/- from Rs.4,85,000/- (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed. (iii) Appellant is granted eight weeks' time to deposit the balance award amount. (iv) On such deposit, the mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest and entire cost. The father of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.1,23,000/- with proportionate interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. (vi) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1. Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Cuddalore. 1 cc TO Mr.D. Bhaskaran, Advocate, SR. 66557 1 cc to Mr.N. Damodaran, Advocate, Sr. 67241 C.M.A.No.3694 of 2008 CK (CO) kk 31/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/