IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3878 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.38, Anna Salai, III Floor,Chennai.2 .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1. D.Venkalam 2. Durvasan 3. P.Sathya (R3 set exparte in the lower Court) .. Respondents /Claimants and 1st Respondent . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 23.06.2008 made in M.C.O.P No.638 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District and Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court No.II), Poonamallee. . . . For Appellant : Mr.N.Mala . . . J U D G M E N T The Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the award dated 23.06.08 made in M.C.O.P No.638 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District and Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court No.II), Poonamallee. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 07.11.2006. The deceased Rajalingam S/O. Durvasan, aged about 20 years, and a Machine Operator in Southern Electro Plastic Moulding Pvt.ltd, Chennai, was riding a cycle on Poonamallee High Road, when he was hit by a trailor lorry insured with the appellant herein and in that accident he suffered grievous injuries and died. The father and mother of the deceased filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5,03,000/- . 3. In support of the claim, mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Kumaresan, eye witness was examined as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.2. Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6. Ex.P.1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P.3 is the copy of legal heir certificate. Ex.P.4 is the Transfer Certificate. Ex.P.5 is the Provisional national Trade Certificate. Ex.P.6 is the National Trade Certificate. No documentary or oral evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5.The only contention raised in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. The issue relating to compensation was decided in paragraph 11 of the award. Based on Exs.P.4, Transfer certificate, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 19 years. The Provisional National Trade Certificate, showing that the deceased was technically qualified as a Fitter was marked as Ex.P.5 and the Certificate issued by the Provisional National Trade Authority was marked as Ex.P.6. The income of the deceased was taken as Rs.4,500/- and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the dependants-parents was taken as Rs.3,000/- p.m and by adopting 12 multiplier, for loss of pecuniary benefits, a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- was granted (i.e) Rs.3000 X 12 X 12 = Rs. 4,32,000/- )Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest. Sl.N0 . Head Amount granted by the Tribunal. 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 4,32,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs 4,46,000/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the income of the deceased fixed is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the following reasons. i. The accident in this case happened in November, 2006 and the deceased, aged 19 years, is a technically qualified https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Machine Operator in Plastic moulding Company near Chennai. Considering the period of accident and the technical qualification of the deceased, the income fixed by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. ii. The cost of living and rise in price justifies the income of Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, the compensation in this case was granted based on the multiplier 12, and as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242, to the parents who are aged 36 and 41 years. iii. Further, a meagre amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents on the death of their son. No amount was granted for loss of Estate and transport expenses. 8. Considering all these aspects, the award is justified as also the interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a since the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 9. In the result, finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.II,Poonamallee. CMA No. 3878 of 2008 CK(CO) SRA(30/01/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/