IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.956 of 2008 United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch office-3, 137 D,Chetty Road, Salem ... Appellant/Second Respondent vs. 1.Andiappan 2.Chandira 3.Mahaboopkhan ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 (3rd Respondent given up) and first respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 25.07.2007 passed in MACTOP.NO.115 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sankari. For appellant : Mr.T.Ravichandran For respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan ----- JUDGMENT The United India Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 25.07.2007 passed in MACTOP.NO.115 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sankari. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 18.10.94. The deceased Suresh Kumar, a bachelor and a car driver aged about 25 years, died in this accident. Suresh Kumar was driving the Car from Komarapalayam to Sankari. The lorry coming from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the car and in that accident, the said Suresh Kumar sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. The father aged about 59 years and mother aged about 54 years filed a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month as driver. 3. In support of the claim, the father was examined as PW1, one Mahendravarman, the eye witness was examined as PW2, and one Mathivanan was examined as PW3.. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the copy of First Information Report, Ex.A.2 is the copy of postmortem report Ex.P.3 is the death certificate of the deceased EX.P.4 is the copy of legal heir certificate EX.P.5 is the report of Assistant Inspector for workers, Ex.P.6is the copy of vehicle's Insurance Ex.P.7 is the copy of driving licence of K.C.Mani, Ex.P.8 is the copy of driving licence of the deceased EX.P.9 is the transfer certificate of the deceased Ex.P.10 is the report of the Motor Vehicle's report Ex.P.1 is the copy of charge sheet and Ex.P.12 is the copy of Judgment dated 10.7.1995. On behalf of the United India Insurance Company, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked. 4. The Tribunal accepted the plea with regard to the income of the deceased based on the oral and documentary evidence filed on record viz. evidence of PW1, the father and exhibit Ex.P8, the driving licence. Based on the age of the deceased who was 25 years old supported by Ex.A9, the Tribunal by adopting 18 Multiplier determined the total pecuniary loss as follows:Rs.3,000-1000=Rs.2000x12 = Rs.24,000 x 18 = Rs.4,32,000/- In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest @ 7.5%: Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income Rs. 4,32,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of Love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 4,62,000 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased in this case is a bachelor earning member. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have adopted lesser multiplier of 12 and not 18 and therefore the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. He also stated that a sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards funeral expenses is on the higher side and that has to be reduced. 6.The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent submitted that the death took place in the year 1994 and the claimants are yet to receive the compensation. The value of money https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has declined by time and what the claimants get now is a pittance. 7. Originally the claimants filed a claim for compensation before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in WC.No.272 of 1995. At the time of final hearing, they sought for permission to withdraw the case and to agitate the same before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore, a claim petition was filed in the year 1996 and the matter was adjudicated thereafter. Therefore, the claimants were prosecuting their claim bonafide. 8. As far as the compensation is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the appellant counsel, in the case of death of a bachelor, the pecuniary benefits of the dependents will have to be considered based on the prospects of the deceased by getting married shortly and possibility of the dependency getting reduced in future. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 will be relevant, as it is a case similar in nature. Hence, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced by reducing the multiplier taking into consideration the age of the parents claimants. 9. The income of the deceased is not disputed. Therefore, the total compensation has to be modified by adopting the multiplier of 12, as against 18. The pecuniary loss will therefore be Rs.24,000 x 12 = Rs.2,88,000/-. The excess in funeral and transport if any can be adjusted towards loss of love and affection. Therefore,the award stands modified as follows: Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of income Rs. 4,32,000/- Rs.2,88,000/- 2 Funeral expenses & transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of Love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 4,62,000/- Rs.3,18,000/- Since the accident happened in the year 1994 and the award was passed in 2007 and considering the delay to some extent caused by the claimants, the interest at 7.5% p.a. is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part as follows: (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,18,000/- from Rs.4,62,000/- (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed. (iii) The counsel for appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount as ordered by this Court and is granted. (iv) On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. (v) There will be no order as to costs. (vi)Consequently, connected petitions, if any is closed. VJY Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sankari. • 1 cc to M/s. T. Ravichandran, Advocate SR No.65513 • 1 cc to M/s. N. Manokaran, Advocate SR No.65744 SSR(CO) SR/10.2.2009 Judgment in C.M.A.No.956 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/