IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.04.2008 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1315 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Pondicherry. .... Appellant / 2nd Respondent vs. 1.Shanthi Pandian 2.Aruna 3.P.Harish Karthik 4.Arumugam (R4 set exparte in the lower Court).... Respondents / Petitioners/ 1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2007 made in MCOP No.4939 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Narasimhan For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthappan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA,J) This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 19.01.2007 made in MCOP No.4939 of 2003 on the file of the V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 19.03.2003 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Pandian was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceeding in his Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing registration No.TSJ 2505 on Pondicherry-Cuddalore Main road. At that time, the driver of the container lorry, bearing registration No.PY-01-B-3872, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.22,38,000/- as compensation, but restricted their claim to Rs.20,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance company resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing regn. No.PY-01-B-3872? 2.What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the container lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.17,83,300/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Pecuniary loss Rs. 17,46,300/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 2,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- ----------------- Total... Rs. 17,83,300/- ----------------- Aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pecuniary loss is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1-Shanthi Pandian is the wife of the deceased Pandian. PW2 is one Nagaraj, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. PW3 is one Nagarajan, who is the Senior Manager of Indian Bank, Main Branch, Pondicherry. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the rough sketch. Ex.P3 is the copy of the post-mortem certificate. Ex.P4 is the accident report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the judgment. Ex.P6 is the salary certificate. Ex.P7 is the death certificate. Ex.P8 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P9 is the copy of the PAN Card. Ex.P10 is the salary details. Ex.P11 is the extract of the service sheet. Ex.P12 is the authorisation letter. P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident, has deposed that a container lorry, which came from behind, dashed against the two wheeler and hence, the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident. After considering the above said evidence and Exs.P1-First Information Report and Ex.P2-Rough Sketch, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the container lorry and that the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the deceased Pandian was aged about 52 years. He was employed as Senior Manager in Indian Bank. PW1, who is the wife of the deceased, has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.21,915.53 per month and has produced Ex.P6 salary slip, Ex.P8 legal heir certificate and Ex.P9 PAN Card of the deceased. PW3, who is the Senior Manager of Indian Bank, Main Branch, Pondicherry, has deposed that the deceased was working as Senior Manager in Indian Bank and was earning Rs.25,879.68 per month at the time of his death. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.25,879.68 p.m. and taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 52 years, has adopted the multiplier of 8 and arrived at the pecuniary loss at Rs.24,84,449.28 (Rs.25,879.68 X 12 X 8). Out of the said amount, after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses viz.,Rs.8,28,149.76, the Tribunal arrived at an amount of Rs.16,56,300/- as the contribution of the deceased to the family upto retirement. Further, the Tribunal has arrived at a sum of Rs.30,000/- per annum as the contribution of the deceased after his retirement for three years and awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 3) and fixed the total pecuniary loss at Rs.17,46,300/- (Rs.16,56,299.52+90,000). Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company has disputed the same and contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the salary of the deceased and it ought to have deducted 10% towards tax payable by the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants has not seriously disputed the same. Considering the above facts, we feel that it would be appropriate to modify the award amount(See 2008(2) L.W. 457). Accordingly, taking into consideration Ex.P10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ salary certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased is fixed at Rs.22,000/-. If 10% tax is deducted i.e. Rs.2,200/-, the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be taken as the monthly salary and thus, the annual income works out to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.20,000x 12). Out of the said amount, if 1/3 towards personal expenses viz., Rs.80,000/- is deducted, the annual contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.1,60,000/-. If 8 multiplier is adopted, the total contribution till his retirement would be Rs.12,80,000/- (Rs.1,60,000x8). After retirement, if the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/- for a period of three years, the loss of income arrived at would be Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.7,500x12x3) and the total pecuniary loss to the family thus works out to Rs.14,60,000/- (Rs.12,80,000/- + 1,80,000/-). The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.2,000/- towards damages to clothing and articles, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. There is no dispute regarding these amounts. Hence, the amounts awarded towards conventional damages are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum, which we feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Pecuniary loss Rs. 14,60,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 2,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- ----------------- Total... Rs. 14,97,000/- ----------------- (rounded off to Rs.15,00,000/-) Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the compensation of Rs.17,83,300/- awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, less the amount already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents-claimants are permitted to withdraw their proportionate shares after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. raa To: 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge) Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai. + 1 CC To Mr.Muthappan, Advocate SR NO.25166 + 1 CC To Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, Advocate SR NO.25142 CMA. No.1315 of 2007 GV(CO) SRA(17/06/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/