National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ramalingam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.11.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.3694 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008 National Insurance Company Ltd.,165, Nethaji Road,Manjakuppam,Cuddalore-1. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.1.Ramalingam,2.Achiyammal,3.D.Illangovan. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.1.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.2), Cuddalore.For appellant : Mr.D.BaskaranFor respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.N.Damodharan JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging theaward dated 31.1.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.292 of 2007 on the fileof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge,Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for theappellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by theTribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on20.3.2005. The deceased Pazhamalai, a driver by occupation,aged 28 years and a bachelor, was riding his motorcycle. He washit by a car insured with the appellant and in that accident, thesaid Pazhamalai died. The father aged 60 years and the mother aged50 years, filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.15 lakhsstating that their son was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Sivakumar, the eye witness, was examined asP.W.2. Exs.A- 1 to A-7 were marked as detailed below:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R. dated 20.3.2005, Ex.A-2 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 23.3.2005, Ex.A-3 is the post-mortem certificate, Ex.A-4 is the copy of the insurance policy of the motorcycle for the period 19.1.2005 to 18.1.2006.Ex.A-5 is the copy of the driving licence of Mohammed Ali.Ex.A-6 is the legal heir certificate dated 1.6.2005 andEx.A-7 is the driving licence in the name of deceased Pazhamalai.No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of theappellant insurance company, the second respondent before theTribunal.5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of thecar insured with the appellant insurance company and the liabilityfixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is notdisputed by the appellant's counsel, and the same is confirmed.6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the same wasdealt with in paragraph 11 onwards in the award in answer to pointNo.2. The deceased was a bachelor earning member and was 28 yearsold at the time of accident. Considering the age and occupation ofthe deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased atRs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3 towardspersonal expenses of the deceased, fixed the contribution to thefamily of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the ageof the deceased bachelor and that of the claimants, the Tribunaladopted 13 multiplier. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the lossof pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/-). In addition,the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. Inall, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensationwith interest 7.5% per annum:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the parentsRs.4,68,000/-2Loss of love and affection to the parentson the death of their sonRs. 10,000/-3Transport and funeral expensesRs. 7,000/-TotalRs.4,85,000/- 7. In this appeal it is contended that if the age of themother is taken, the proper multiplier should be 11 and not 13.Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of theApex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reportedin 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 and stated that thecontribution by the deceased to the dependents will be reducedafter the marriage and therefore, the Tribunal should have adoptedlesser multiplier in this case as against 13.8. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, who stated that the compensation granted by the Tribunalis just and reasonable and does not require any reduction. Theparents are only aged 60 and 50 years respectively and their sondied at very young age and meagre amount has been granted towardsloss of love and affection.9. The deceased is a bachelor earning member, driver byoccupation and 28 years old. The income of the deceased fixed bythe Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- cannot be disputed in view of the ApexCourt's decisions in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana andothers reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 and inThe Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and others reportedin 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC). 10. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the fact remainsthat the claimants are the father aged 60 years and the mother aged50 years. The possibility of the deceased bachelor earning membergetting married and the pecuniary benefits getting reduced to theparents is always there. In the case of bachelor earning member,higher multiplier as per schedule need not be adopted to grantcompensation to the dependents, who are the parents, as thedependency will get reduced on marriage. The lump sum payment isanother factor to be considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court as above, andtaking note of the age of the claimants, the proper multiplier inthis case will be 11 and not 13. There is no dispute with regardto income fixed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total pecuniaryloss to the parents will be Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 11 =Rs.3,96,000). The sum of Rs.10,000/-granted towards loss of loveand affection to the father and mother is very low. The sum ofRs.7,000/- granted towards transport and funeral expenses isconfirmed. The father and the mother will be entitled to furthersum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection.Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount grantedby theTribunalAmountgranted bythis Court1Loss of pecuniary benefits tothe parentsRs.4,68,000/-Rs.3,96,000/-2Loss of love and affection tothe parents on the death oftheir sonRs. 10,000/-Rs. 20,000/-3Transport and funeral expensesRs. 7,000/-Rs. 7,000/-TotalRs.4,85,000/-Rs.4,23,000/- 12. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% standsconfirmed since the accident in this case happened in the year 2005and the award was passed in January 2008. 13. Counsel for the appellant prays for eight weeks' time todeposit the balance award amount, and on such deposit, the counselfor the respondents 1 and 2/claimants prays for withdrawal.14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowedin part as follows:-(i) The Award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.4,23,000/- fromRs.4,85,000/-(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% isconfirmed.(iii) Appellant is granted eight weeks' time to deposit thebalance award amount. (iv) On such deposit, the mother of the deceased is permittedto withdraw a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest andentire cost. The father of the deceased is permitted to withdrawthe sum of Rs.1,23,000/- with proportionate interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.(vi) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsTo1. Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Cuddalore. 1 cc TO Mr.D. Bhaskaran, Advocate, SR. 665571 cc to Mr.N. Damodaran, Advocate, Sr. 67241C.M.A.No.3694 of 2008CK (CO)kk 31/12