IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3384 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Amirtham, 2.Minor Amsa, 3.Minor Ajith alias Ranjith, 4.Minor Anusuya, 5.V.T.Chandrasekaran, (Minor Respondents 2 to 4 are represented by their mother and natural guardian the 1st respondent) (5th respondent set ex parte by the lower court). ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 4 and first respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 14.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.803 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Puducherry. For appellant : Mrs.N.Mala ----- JUDGMENT The United India Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 14.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.803 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Puducherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 10.1.2005. The deceased Haridass, aged 32 years, a carpenter, was travelling on a cycle on the East-Coast road near Manjakuppam. His cycle was hit by a Qualis car bearing Registration No.TN-07-R-6925 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the said Haridass sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in PIMS Hospital, Ponducherry and he was treated for two days. However, in spite of best efforts he died. The wife aged 29 years, two minor daughters aged 10 years and 2 years and one minor son aged 8 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Selvamurthy, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. One Natarajan, the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 to show the nature of business, in which the deceased was employed and the income that he earned. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimants:- Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R., Ex.A-2 is the photocopy of insurance certificate for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-07-R-6935, Ex.A-3 is the photocopy post-mortem report dated 4.2.2005, Ex.A-4 is the photocopy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection report dated 21.3.2005, Ex.A-5 is the birth certificate of Anusuya, Ex.A-6 is the birth certificate of Ranjith, Ex.A-7 is the photocopy of the first page of family ration card of the claimants, Ex.A-8 is the discharge summary dated 1.2.2005, Ex.A-9 is the discharge slip dated 3.2.2005, Ex.A-10 is the medical bill dated 10.1.2005 for Rs.1,250/-, Ex.A-11 series are the doctor's prescriptions 30 in numbers, Ex.A-12 series are the medical bills 29 in numbers, Ex.A-13 is the medical bill dated 27.1.2005 for Rs.200/-, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.A-14 is the advance receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 11.1.2005, Ex.A-15 is the school certificate for Amsa dated 1.9.2006, Ex.A-16 is the election identity card of Haridass dated 1.4.2001 and Ex.A-17 is the certificate issued by Sri Marye Fiber Boat Works dated 5.2.2006 The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Even though it was stated in the list of witnesses that no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal, it is stated that Ex.B-1 claim form was marked through R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the Qualis car, who caused the accident, in which the deceased died and the liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimants as decided in paragraphs 6 to 11 in answer to point No.1 is not seriously disputed by the appellant in this appeal. Therefore, such finding based on oral and documentary evidence stands confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation in paragraphs No.12 to 17 of the award in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased was taken as 32 years based on Ex.A-3 post-mortem certificate. The income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month. P.W.3 Natarajan stated in his evidence that he has a boat manufacturing company at Bahour and the deceased Haridass was working under him and he was paying Rs.1,200/- per week to Haridass. Ex.A-17 salary certificate has been filed. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the evidence of P.W.3 nor Ex.A-17 salary certificate. But fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, thereafter, applied unit method following the Apex Court decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others - vs. - Trilok Chander & others reported in 1996(2) Law Weekly, 226 and determined the annual contribution to the family of the deceased as follows:- "Rs.3,000.00 – Rs.900.00 = Rs.2,100.00 x 12 = Rs.25,200.00" Since the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accident, multiplier 17 was adopted and the total pecuniary loss to the dependents was determined as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Rs.25,200.00 x 17 = Rs.4,28,400.00" In addition to the above the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all the Tribunal granted compensation as follows with interest at 7.5%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.4,28,400/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 30,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to three minor children on the death of their father (Rs.10,000/- each) Rs. 30,000/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- 6 Medical expenses as per Exs.A-10, A-12, A-13 and A-14 medical bills Rs. 15,683/- Total Rs.5,10,083/- rounded to Rs.5,10,000/- 6. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. She pleaded that lesser multiplier should have been taken as the deceased in the case was a 32 years old boat making carpenter and consequently, the compensation should be reduced. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 10.1.2005. Undisputedly, the deceased was a carpenter said to be manufacturing and repairing boats that is supported by the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A-17. He was 32 years old at the time of death and was supporting his wife aged 29 years and three minor children aged 10 years, 8 years and 2 years respectively. (ii) The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2005. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, who was a carpenter engaged in manufacture of fishing boats and also considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2005, the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month is very low though the claim was for Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased in this case if taken at least as Rs.4,000/- and if 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the pecuniary loss to the dependents will be Rs.32,000/- per annum. Even if the multiplier is reduced to 14, the total pecuniary loss to to the family of the deceased will be Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.32,000/- x 14 = Rs.4,48,000/-, whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.4,28,400/- only towards loss of pecuniary benefits. (iii) In this case for loss of love and affection, the three minor children were granted meagre amount. (iv) This court finds no good reason to interfere with the award by way of reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ts Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Principal District Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Pondicherry. Copy to:- The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to M/s. N. Mala, Advocate CCSR No.62471 Judgment in C.M.A.No.3384 of 2008 SSN(CO) SR/25.11.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/