Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.09.2006CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAMC.M.A.No.1203 of 19991.M.Lakshmi2.O.Manickam.. Appellants (Petitioner)-Vs-1. D.Chandran2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office UIL Buildings, No.8, Esplanade Road, Chennai 600 018... Respondents (Respondents)APPEAL U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against order passed bythe learned , Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Judge, Court of SmallCauses)Chennai dated 19.02.1999 made in M.A.CT. O.P.No.2053 of 1996.For Appellant : Mr.M.SwamikannuFor Respondent-2 : No appearance R-1 : NDWJ U D G E M E N TThe above appeal has been filed by the claimants in MCOP No.2053 of1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge of Small Causes), Chennai. The appellants filed the claim petition seekinga compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards death of their SonM.Saravanakumar, who was aged 16 years on the date of the accident viz.,09.05.1996.

According to the claimants, their son had studied upto 9thstandard and in proof of the same Ex.A.1 was marked. The Tribunal onconsideration of various decisions cited before it, has awarded alumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. On not being satisfied with theaward, the above appeal has been filed.

The learned counsel for the appellants by relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in IV (2005) ACC 15 in the caseof Manju Devi and Another vs. Musafir Paswan and another, submits thatthe Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

When the case was called, the counsel for the respondents wereabsent and there was no representation.

In the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-"2. In the case of U.P.State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, I (1996) ACC 592(SC)=1996ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this Court thatthere should be no departure from the multipliermethod on the ground that payment being made is justcompensation. It has been held that the multipliermethod must be accepted method for determining andensuring payment of just compensation as it is themethod which brings uniformity and certainty toawards made all over the country. In view of thisauthority, it will have to beheld that the award ofcompensation had to be made by the multipliermethod.3. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years ofage, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earningperson, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as theincome. Thus, the compensation comes toRs.2,25,000/-."

When the Hon'ble Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-as compensation in the case of a death of a 13 year old body, theprinciples laid down in that case has to be applied in this case also.

There is no dispute that the deceased boy was aged 16 years onthe date of accident. Therefore, this Court is of the considered viewthat in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in theabove said decision, it will be just and proper to award a compensationof Rs.2,25,000/-.