Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manjula & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-3-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.603 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,Registered Office,No.21, Patullos Road,Chennai-600 002. ... Appellant/3rd Respondent vs.1.Manjula,2.A.Kalidoss,3.R.Ravindran.(Respondents 2 and 3 remainedex parte before the Tribunal.Hence notice may be dispensedwith) ... Respondents/Petitioner and respondents 1 and 2Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 18.11.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.802 of 2007 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C.Act Cases), Coimbatore. For appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan JUDGMENTThis appeal is filed by the M/s.Royal Sundaram AllianceInsurance Company, challenging the award 18.11.2008 passed inM.C.O.P.No.802 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal (Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C. ActCases), Coimbatore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on22.2.2007. The deceased B.Sivakumar, aged 15 years, working as ahelper in M/s.Swagat Precision Products, was travelling on hisbicycle. One Vaidhiyalingam was behind him in a bicycle. The lorrybelonging to the third respondent herein and insured with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant herein, driven by the second respondent herein in a rashand negligent manner coming from the opposite direction, hit thecyclist. The lorry ran over the said Sivakumar. In that accidentthe said Sivakumar died on the spot. The mother of the deceasedfiled a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating thatthe deceased was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. Mr.Vaithiyalingam, the eye witness to theaccident and who gave the complaint to the police was examined asP.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-12 were marked on behalf of the claimant, thedetails of which are as follows:-Ex.P-1 is the copy of FIR dated 22.2.2007,Ex.P-2 is the copy of final report dated 18.3.2007,Ex.P-3 is the copy of rough sketch dated 22.2.2007,Ex.P-4 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 22.2.2007,Ex.P-5 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 22.2.2007, Ex.P-6 is the death certificate dated 18.4.2007,Ex.P-7 is the copy of death certificate dated 30.11.2006,Ex.P-8 is the copy of legal heir certificate dated 25.7.2008,Exs.P-9 and P-10 are the authorisation dated 13.6.2008 and 28.7.2008,Ex.P-11 is the salary certificate dated 10.5.2007 andEx.P-12 is the school transfer certificate dated 20.9.2008.No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellantinsurance company, the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of thelorry insured with the appellant insurance company, as responsibleto the accident and the death and consequent liability fixed on theappellant insurance company to compensate the claimant is notdisputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the sameis confirmed. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, thesame was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the award inanswer to point No.2. Based on school transfer certificate Ex.P-12,the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 16 years. Based onExs.P-9, Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11, the Tribunal came to conclusion thatthe deceased was working in M/s.Swagat Precision Products PrivateLimited company and was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. TheTribunal after deducting a sum of Rs.750/- towards personal expensesof the deceased, fixed the loss of contribution to the family of thedeceased at Rs.1,250/- per month (i.e.) Rs.15,000/- per annum. Basedon the legal heir certificate Ex.P-8, the Tribunal fixed the age ofthe claimant as 45 years and adopted 15 multiplier for the purpose ofdetermining the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ loss of pecuniary benefits to the mother of the deceased atRs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 15 = Rs.2,25,000/-). The Tribunal alsogranted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunalgranted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest ashereunder:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of compensation to the mother on thedeath of her sonRs.2,25,000/-2Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-3Transport expensesRs. 5,000/-4Loss of protection to the mother on thedeath of her sonRs. 15,000/-5Loss of love and affection to the mother onthe death of her sonRs. 10,000/-TotalRs.2,60,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that themultiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is high. Therefore, thequantum of compensation is to be reduced.7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined tointerfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention andto reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 22.2.2007.(ii) In this case, the deceased was 16 years at the time ofaccident. The deceased was working in a private company and wasearning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal afterdeducting a sum of Rs.750/- towards the personal expenses of thedeceased, fixed the loss of contribution to the dependent motherat Rs.1,250/- per month (i.e.) Rs.15,000/- per annum. Based onthe age of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted 15multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation. (iii) In Manju Devi and another - vs.– Musafir Paswan and anotherreported in 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609(SC) = 2004(2) TNMAC 262(SC), a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was granted as compensation for thedeath of a 13 years old student. The accident in that casehappened in the year 1998. The Apex Court in The MunicipalCorporation of Greater Bombay - vs. - Shri Laxman Iyer andanother reported in 2004 ACJ 53 = 2004(1) TN MAC (SC) 16 = 2004(2) LW 15 = (2004)1 M.L.J. 82(S.C.), on the death of 18 year oldstudent and on a claim for compensation filed by father andmother aged 47 and 43 years respectively, the Apex Court fixedthe total compensation in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) In this case, the father already died. Now the mother lost thesupport, love and affection from her son for the rest of herlife. Hence, even if the multiplier 15 adopted by the Tribunal ishigh, the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towardspecuniary loss is justified in view of the above said decisions.In any event considering the cost of living and rise in price thecompensation is not excessive. Considering the annual income ofRs.24,000/- in this case, the compensation even as per thestructured formula set out in the second schedule in terms ofSection 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will be more thanthe amount granted in this case. (v) The other amounts granted under conventional heads are notdisputed and the same are confirmed. (vi)Considering the above aspects the total compensation granted ina sum of Rs.2,60,000/- by the Tribunal does not require anyfurther reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as theaccident in this case happened in the year 2007 and the award isof the year 2008.8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seekseight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted andon such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsToThe Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C. Act Cases,(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore. C.M.A.No.603 of 2009 CK(CO)EM/3.4.09