United India Insurance Co.,Ltd. v. Lakshmanan & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.11.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.(NPD)No.3465 of 2008United India Insurance Co.,Ltd.,Post Box No.34, C.G.Complex,No.139,Kumaran Road, Tiruppur. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.1.Lakshmanan2.Ummaiyal3.Ramasamy... Respondents /1 & 2 Petitionersand 1st Respondent (3rd respondent exparte in Lower Court and hence notice may be dispensed with.) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 18.9.2007passed in M.C.O.P.No.234 of 2005 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5,Coimbatore.For appellant : Mr.Ismail for Mr.M.B.Gopalan -----JUDGMENT The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the Judgment anddecree in M.C.O.P.No. 234 of 2005 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5,Coimbatore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this casehappened on 24.2.2005. The deceased Ramanathan said to be 26 yearsold, a bachelor was travelling on a two wheeler when a lorry insuredwith the appellant driven in a rash and negligent manner by itsdriver hit the two wheeler and in that accident, the said Ramanathanwas thrown out of the vehicle. He sustained grievous injury. He wastaken to K.G.Hospital, Arulpuram for the first day and then he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitted in K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore. He died on 25.2.2005 i.e. nextday. Postmortem was conducted at CMC Hospital Coimbatore.3. The father, aged about 50 years and the mother aged about 45years, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed a claim for compensationin a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceasedbachelor son was Rs.7,000/- per month. It is further stated that thedeceased was working as a Merchandiser in Stanefab Apparels,Tiruppur.. 4. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. Rajamanickam, an eye witness was examined as P.W.2and Saravanan, an eye witness was examined as PW3. Exs.A1 to A10were marked on behalf of the claimants. Ex.A1 is the FirstInformation Report, Ex.A2 is the Postmortem Certificate, Ex.A3 is theDeath Certificate, Ex.A4 is the Legal Heir certificate, EX.A5 is theDeath summary of the deceased issued by the K.G. Hospital, Ex.A6 isthe salary certificate of the deceased, Ex.A7 is the Diplomacertificate obtained by the deceased in 1998 in Textile Technology,Ex.A8 is the Certificate for Training undergone from Chennai CentralLeather Research Computer Institute Aided Design of Garments, Ex.A9is the Certificate of the deceased for his participation in NationalCadet Corps, Ex.A10 is the Driving Licence. PW2, the Accountant ofthe company in which the deceased was working, in his statement atthe time of examination in chief marked documents as Exs.W.A1,W.A2and W.A3. No document was marked or witness examined on behalf ofthe appellant insurance company, the respondent before the Tribunal. 5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of thelorry, insured with the appellant insurance corporation and liabilityof the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimants is notdisputed by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal.Hence, the same is confirmed. 6. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunalfrom Paragraph 8 onwards in answer to Point No.2. As per Ex.A2, PostMortem certificate and Ex.A10, the driving licence , the age of thedeceased was fixed as 26 years and that is not in dispute.Ex.A6 wasmarked by PW1 to show that the salary of the deceased in December2004 was Rs.7,000/- Ex.A7 is a document to show that the deceased wasqualified in Textile Technology. He also holds the certificateissued by the Central Leather Research Institute (Computer Aideddesign of garments) (Ex.A8). He also holds the certificate for havingparticipated in National Service Scheme. The Accountant of thecompany M/s Stanfab Apparels was examined as PW2, through himdocuments Exs.WA1, WA2 and WA3 were marked. One document relates toauthorisation given to the witness to depose before the Tribunal,Ex.WA2 relates to salary given to the deceased and Ex.WA3 relates toAttendance Register. It is also the statement of PW2 that the salaryof the deceased was about Rs.7,000/- per month. An objection was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raised before the Tribunal that the Photo copy of the documents aloneare filed and not the originals. Appellants does not dispute that thedeceased was working in stanefab Apparels, Tiruppur and that is thefinding of the Tribunal as well. The Tribunal however did not acceptthe plea that the income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- stating thatit is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, taking intoconsideration his educational qualification supported by Exs.A7,8 andA9, the Tribunal fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- permonth. The Tribunal thereafter taking into consideration the relevantparameters like age of the claimants (i.e.) parents adopted 13multiplier. After deducting 1/3 of the income towards the personalexpenses of the deceased, the Tribunal granted the compensation with7.5% interest per annum in the following manner:Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of incomeRs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/-(minus 1/3)i.e. Rs.24,000 = Rs.48,000 x 13 =Rs.6,24,000/-Rs.6,24,000/-2Loss of love affection to parents(Rs.15,000 x 2)Rs. 30,000/-3Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/- TotalRs. 6,59,000 7. The counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction of quantumof compensation stating that the income of the deceased taken in thiscase is on the higher side. Therefore the compensation has to bereduced. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum ofcompensation for the following reasons: The deceased bachelor wasaged about 26 years and the claimants father and mother are agedabout 50 and 45 years respectively. The income of the deceased issupported by Ex.A6 salary certificate. The documents produced by oneof the witness,the Accountant of Stanfab Apparels, Tiruppur aresupporting documents to show that the deceased was in gainfulemployment. The deceased was technically qualified, both in textilesas well as leather technology including Design technology. Therefore,considering the fact that the deceased was working in an apparelsmanufacturing company in Tirupur, an Industrial hub of South Indiawhich is known for its high volume of exports, The income of thedeceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/-p.m. cannot be said to beexcessive. In fact there is no reason for rejection of the income asper Exhibit A6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in BijoyKumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 =2006 (3) SCC 242, the Multiplier of 13 adopted in this case is also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reduce thequantum of compensation, as also the interest at 7.5% p.a, as theaccident in this case happened in the year 2005 and award passed in2007. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.The appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the amount and onsuch deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same.There will be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarVJYTo1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore at Tiruppur.2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.C.M.A.(NPD)No.3465 of 2008SR(CO)SRA(06/02/2009)