IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3604 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Door No.171, Thambu Chetty Street, Karnataka Bank Building, Chennai. ... Appellant/3rd Respondent vs. 1.Tmt.Sundarambal, 2.K.M.Moindeen, 3.A.Gopalraj, 4.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., India Life Building, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. (Respondents 2 and 3 ex parte before the Tribunal. Hence notice may be dispensed with. (Appeal is not pressed against 4th respondent)... ... Respondent/Petitioner and Respondents 1, 2 and 4 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 4.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1511 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Coimbatore. For appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan ----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT The New India Assurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 4.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1511 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Coimbatore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.6.2002. The deceased K.Kanagaraj, aged 42 years, an agriculturist, was travelling on a cycle towards Madukkarai returning from Othakal Mandapam. He was hit by a Tanker lorry insured with the appellant. In that accident, the said Kanagaraj died. The mother aged 65 years as per claim petition, filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. 3. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Kumar, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant:- Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R., dated 26.6.2002, Ex.A-2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 26.6.2002, Ex.A-3 is the photocopy of rough sketch dated 26.6.2002, Ex.A-4 is the photocopy of charge-sheet dated 6.7.2002, Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of judgment dated 19.7.2002, Ex.A-6 is the photocopy post-mortem report dated 26.6.2002, Ex.A-7 is the school transfer certificate, Ex.A-8 is the patta book, Ex.A-9 is the death certificate and Ex.A-10 is the legal heir certificate dated 30.7.2002. No oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the third respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, who caused the accident, in which the deceased died and the liability of the appellant insurance company to compensate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the claimant as decided in paragraphs 7 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. 6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation in paragraphs No.12 to 14 of the award in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased bachelor was taken as 42 years based on Ex.A-6 post-mortem certificate and Ex.A-4 charge-sheet. The age of the mother of the deceased was taken as 65 years as per claim petition. There is no dispute on this. Balancing the multiplier applicable based on the age of the deceased and that of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted 10 multiplier and determined the compensation. 7. Though the income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, however, fixed the income as Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By adopting 10 multiplier, the total pecuniary loss to the mother was fixed at Rs.2,40,000/-. 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 dependent mother of the deceased Rs.2,40,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the mother on the death of her son Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.2,54,500/- 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 10 taken in this case is on the higher side since the mother is aged 65 years old and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 9. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The deceased is a bachelor and an agriculturist owning lands as per Ex.A-8. The accident in this case happened on 25.6.2002. (ii) The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- (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 2002. Considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased, at least as Rs.4,000/- per month. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month and if the multiplier is reduced , then the compensation will be almost the same. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation by way of reduction. (iii) As per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, according to the age of the mother of the deceased, the multiplier to be adopted in this case is 5. In this case, the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal is less and therefore, the compensation based on the multiplier 10 is justified as the higher multiplier compensates the lower income taken. (iv) In the Apex Court's decision in Manju Devi and another – Musafir Paswan and another 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609(SC) = 2004(2) TNMAC 262(SC), in the case of death of a child aged about 13 years, compensation in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was granted. Hence, the compensation of Rs.2,54,500/- granted in this case appears to be just and reasonable and does not require 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 2008. 10. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore. + 1 CC To Mr.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate SR NO.65614 Judgment in C.M.A.No.3604 of 2008 SGL {CO} TP/26.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/