United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,38,AnnaSalai,Chennai.2 v. Padmavathi2. Malarkodi3. Kannan4. Kayalvizhi5. Krishnaleela6. Minor Vishnupriya(minor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.04.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No. 848 of 2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,38,AnnaSalai, Chennai.2. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.

Padmavathi2. Malarkodi3. Kannan4. Kayalvizhi5. Krishnaleela6. Minor Vishnupriya(minor rep. By mother and next friend Padmavathi/1st respondent)7. J. Murugesan... Respondents/petitioners/ 1st respondent . . . Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act 1988, against the award and decree dated 04.2.2004passed in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2003 on the file of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (Additional District Court and Fast Track Court No.4)Poonamallee. . . . For appellant : Mr.M.B. Gopalan . . . JUDGMENTThe insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 04.2.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court and Fast Track Court No.4) Poonamallee.

It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 5.2.2003 on the M.T.H.Road near Shaw-wall Company, Avadi. The deceased Rangasami, owner of the provision store said tobe 48 years old, was riding a motor cycle when he was hit by a lorry insured with the appellant insurance company and in that accident, he suffered grievous injuries and he was admitted in Ramachandra MedicalCollege Hospital. Subsequently, he took treatment in stanley medical college hospital and he died inspite of treatment. The wife aged 45 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years, four daughters aged 24 years, 21 years, 19 years and 14 years respectively and one son aged 22 years are the claimants. Theyclaimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Suyambu, the eye witness, was examined asP.W.2. Documents Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of theF.I.R. Ex.A2 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the legalheirship certificate. Ex.A4 is the medical bills for the treatment taken in Ramachandra medical college hospital. Ex.A5 is the licence to show that the deceased was running the provision store .

The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding is confirmed.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, based on the oral and documentary evidence, as against the income ofRs.6,000/- p.m. claimed, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was 48 years old and placing reliance on the schedule to Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13 and fixed the total pecuniary loss in a sum ofRs.4,16,000/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation onconventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.Sl.No.HeadAmount granted by the Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.4,16,000/-2 Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/-3Loss of consortiumRs. 5,000/-4Loss of love and affectionRs. 25,000/-5Medical expensesRs.1,19,322.25TotalRs.5,67,322.25rounded toRs.5,67,322/-6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased taken at Rs.4,000/-p.m. is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. There is no dispute on the other issues.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) It is not in dispute that the deceased was running aprovision store and supporting the family consisting the wife and five children out of which four children are adults. The deceased would have certainly earned substantial amount to support a large family till he died. Further, the accident in this case happened in the year 2003. Considering the cost of living and rise in price, the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in view of the following two decisions .(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Lathareported 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. - JasbirKaur 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 1999respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2003. Therefore, the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is justified. No other issues are canvassed in this appeal.

Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant states that entire award amount has been deposited. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarraToThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Court and Fast Track Court No.4) Poonamallee. 1 cc To Mr.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate, SR.12385 CMA No. 848 of 2009SGL(CO)aSRA(28/4/2009)