IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3620 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Pondicherry. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Tmt.Vijaya, 2.Miss Uma Maheswari, 3.Thiru Sivachandiran, 4.Tmt.Laxmi, 5.Thiru Selvaraj, 6.Thiru Seenuvasan. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.8.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.I), Tindivanam. For appellant : Mrs.Sivasankari for Mr.J.Chandran ----- JUDGMENT National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 17.8.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.I), Tindivanam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 14.11.2002. The deceased Pavadairayan, aged 40 years, was standing in the Kannigapuram village bus stop, when he was hit by the Canter Van insured with the appellant insurance company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident the said Pavadairayan suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The wife aged 37 years, daughter aged 20 years, son aged 19 years, mother aged 55 years and father aged 60 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Doraisamy, the eye witness as well as co- worker of the deceased, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of F.I.R., dated 15.11.2002, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 29.11.2002, Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of post-mortem certificate dated 15.11.2002, Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.55 of 2005 dated 31.3.2005, No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the Canter Van and the liability of the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.2. According to the claim petition, the deceased was a carpenter by profession and it is supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and that is not seriously disputed. The age of the deceased was fixed as 40 years based on Ex.A-3 post-mortem certificate. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, in the absence of specific documentary evidence, as against the income of Rs.5,000/- claimed, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ month. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family of the deceased was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. Relying upon second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 and determined the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased at Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-). In addition, the Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents Rs.3,60,000/- 2 For mental agony to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the wife, daughter, son and parents due to the death of the deceased Rs. 10,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,80,000/- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that ground No.7 in appeal has been erroneously taken stating that no deduction towards personal expenses was made. In the award, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 7. Ms.Sivasankari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further pleaded that multiplier of 15 is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 14.11.2002. The fact that the deceased is a carpenter aged 40 years is not in dispute. (ii) As far as income is concerned the following two decisions will have to be taken into consideration:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 2002. In this case, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- only and by adopting 15 multiplier, the compensation has been granted. The deceased, in this case, was supporting the family of wife, daughter, son, mother and father. Therefore, the income of the deceased should have been fixed at least Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month considering the cost of living, rise in price of commodities and the inflation. Further, the minimum wages of persons like carpenters and similarly placed persons has to be considered before determining the income and compensation. (iii) The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is based on the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month only, which is low, prejudice is caused to the claimants. However, such prejudice stands reversed by the multiplier adopted in this case. Therefore, the marginally higher multiplier taken by the Tribunal will compensate for the lesser income taken in respect of the deceased carpenter. (iv) Further, meagre amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection to the daughter, son and the parents. (v) Considering all the above aspects and since amount is yet to be paid to the claimants in view of the appeal filed, the quantum of compensation does not require further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2005. (vi) The appellant has not made out a case to reduce the compensation any further. 9. 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 and on such deposit, the respondents 1 to 5/claimants are entitled to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ withdraw the same as ordered and apportioned by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. Fast Track Court Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Tindivanam. +1cc to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate Sr 65470 CK (Co) km/29.12. C.M.A.No.3620 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/