High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 06-07-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUC.M.A.No.676 OF 20021.M.Kathyayani2.M.Sireesha3.M.Aparjitha (Minor) Minor rep.by her mother and next friend M.Kathyayani)...Appellants/Petitioners-vs-1.V.Mahendran2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Madras-2....Respondents/Respondents(Respondent No.1 was set ex parte by the trial Court)Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act against the award anddecree, dated 24.08.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.1803 of 1997, on thefile of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court ofSmall Causes), Madras. . For appellant : Mr.S.Gangaram PrasadFor Respondent 2 : Mr.K.S.NarasimhanJ U D G M E N TThis appeal is filed by the claimants, against thedisallowed portion of the award, dated 24.08.2001, made inM.C.O.P.No.1803 of 1997, on the file of Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, in awardinga compensation of Rs.9,34,800/-, as against the claim ofRs.15,00,000/-, for the death of one Janakiram.2. Claimants are wife and daughters of the deceased. 3. On 14.01.1997, at about 00.10 hours, when the deceased wasriding his scooter bearing registration No.TN-04-7158 in RajajiSalai-Kodimara Salai junction, a lorry bearing registrationNo.TDL-9869, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,dashed against the said scooter, as a result of which the deceaseddied on the spot. First respondent is the owner of the lorry,which is insured with second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Tribunal factually found that the accidentoccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by itsdriver and, therefore, compensation has to be paid by secondrespondent, who is the insurer of first respondent. 5. No appeal is filed by the respondents against thesaid finding of the Tribunal and, hence, it has become final.6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants hassubmitted that the award of Rs.9,34,800/- in toto under differentheads is too low and, hence, the compensation should be enhanced. 7. Ex.P-1 is S.S.L.C. Book, pertaining to the deceased,as per which, his date of birth was 21.03.1951. Ex.P-2 is aCertificate, issued by the State Board of Technical Education andTraining, certifying that the deceased Janakiram was a diplomaholder in mechanical engineering with specialisation inrefrigeration and air-conditioning. Ex.P-4 is the post-mortemcertificate, which shows that the deceased was aged 48 years.However, considering the entry in Ex.P-1, the date of birth of thedeceased has to be taken as 46 years. Ex.P-10 is a xerox copy ofthe service particulars, as per which, the deceased was working asa Junior Engineer in Corporation of Chennai and drawing a grosssalary of Rs.9,416/- per month. Ex.P-11 is a xerox copy of thelast pay certificate of the deceased, which shows that thedeceased was drawing the above said salary at the time ofaccident. 8. P.W.4 is an Assistant in Chennai Corporation, whodeposed that had the deceased been in service continuously, hewould have drawn Rs.16,308/- per month, after promotion asAssistant Executive Engineer.9. There is no dispute with regard to the promotionalavenues, available to the deceased. If the accident had notoccurred, as spoken to by P.W.4, the deceased would have gotpromotion as Assistant Executive Engineer and been drawingRs.16,308/- per month. Ex.P-10 contains the particulars as to theincome of the deceased with reference to pay revision, on therecommendations of Pay Commission. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants garnered support from aDivision Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v.Mrs.Suseela and others, 2000 (3) L.W.264, wherein the prospects ofa deceased doctor with reference to his increased income on thebasis of recommendations of Pay Commission were discussed, on thestrength of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. V. Kala Devi, 1996 ACJ 16. The operativeportion of the said Division Bench ruling of this Court reads asfollows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "17.....The next ruling that can be usefullyreferred to is one reported in New IndiaAssurance Co.Ltd. v. Kala Devi (1996 ACJ 16),wherein the Apex Court, in the concludingparagraph ruled thus :'The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9780/-as compensation for the death. The claimantspreferred an Appeal before the High Court ofDelhi. An application was made in the HighCourt that the compensation be enhanced inview of the revision of the pay scales of thepost held by the deceased, by the Third PayCommission. The High Court, taking intoaccount the revision of pay scales by theThird Pay Scales by the Third Pay Commission,awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- ascompensation. The contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant is that the HighCourt had allowed the application of theclaimants for enhancement of compensation onthe basis of Third Pay Commission Reportwithout affording an opportunity of beingheard to the appellant. But, it may be notedthat the appellant had filed an appeal againstthe order allowing the application of theclaimants for enhancement of the claim on thebasis of the report of the Third PayCommission and the said appeal was dismissedby the High Court. Having regard to therevised scale of the post held by thedeceased, his age and longevity of life aswell as all other facts and circumstances ofthe case, we do not find any justification tointerfere with the quantum of compensationawarded by the High Court. The appeal is,therefore, dismissed." 11. In view of the principles laid down in the abovedecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in this case also, thepromotional opportunities as well as the future pay scalerevisions on the recommendations of Pay Commission should also beconsidered, for the purpose of fixing compensation. Therefore, themonthly income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.12,000/-. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for therespondents cited another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya & Ors.,2005 (4) Supreme 87, wherein it was decided that while thedeceased was aged 38 years and the claimants being widow and minorson, the appropriate multiplier would be '12'.13. However, learned counsel for the appellants cited aFull Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Supe Devi v. National https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Insurance Co.Ltd., 2002 ACJ 1166, wherein, considering the IISchedule to the amended Motor Vehicles Act,1988, Their Lordshipsfixed appropriate multiplier as '17', directing that II Schedulemay be taken as a guideline. 14. In the said case, the deceased was aged 32 years atthe time of accident, but, in the case on hand, the age of thedeceased was 46 years and, hence, the appellants cannot takerecourse to the benefit of the above said decision. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants also placedreliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in NationalInsurance Company Ltd.v. William Janifar Ajitha & Others, 2007 (1)TNMAC 332 (DB), wherein it has been decided that for fixingcompensation, when the deceased was aged 30 years, multiplier 18has to be adopted. However, the principle contained in the saiddecision also would not be applicable to the appellants, as theage of the deceased herein was 46 years.16. Going by the circumstances and the guidelinescontained in the decision in Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya & Ors., 2005 (4) Supreme 87, theappropriate multiplier to be adopted in this case is, 12.17. If we deduct 1/3 from the monthly salary ofRs.12,000/- of the deceased towards 'personal expenses', thedependency comes to Rs.8,000/-, thereby the annual loss of incomefor the appellants shall be Rs.96,000/-. Applying the multiplier12, the total loss of income shall be calculated atRs.11,52,000/-, as against the sum of Rs.9,04,800/-, awarded bythe Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards 'loss of consortium', 'loss of love and affection' and'funeral expenses' and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards 'lossof estate', which, in my view, are just and proper.18. Thus, award of the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.2,47,200/-,taking the total to Rs.11,82,000/-. As such, the respondents aredirected to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal, withinterest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition tillthe date of deposit, within a period of eight weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount,first appellant is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-, second appellant toRs.47,200/- and third appellant to Rs.50,000/-. Except thirdappellant, who is a minor, the other appellants are at liberty towithdraw their shares. As regards third appellant, her share shallbe kept in Fixed Deposit until she attains majority. On otheraspects, award of the Tribunal stands. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. With the above modification of the award, thisappeal is allowed in part. No costs.dixitSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes),Chennai.2. The Registrar Court of Small CausesChennai3. The Section Officer,VR Section, High Court, Madras+ one cc to MR.S, Mr.S.Gangaram Prasad, Advocate sr no. 40748bv(co)nm(09.08.07) C.M.A.No.676 OF 2002