G.Chitra v. H.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 27.1.2009CoramTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.3801 of 20081.G.Chitra,2.Minor G.Nithyasri,3.S.Dhanalakshmi.(Minor 2nd appellant is representedby her mother and natural guardian,the first appellant. ... Appellants/Petitioners 1 to 3vs.1.H.Ramesh,2.Wimco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd., II Floor, No.28, (Old No.195), North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.3.S.Sivashanmugam.(The first respondent remained ex parte in the lower court, hence noticemay be dispensed with)(Claim by 3rd respondent was dismissed in trial court, hencenotice may be dispensed with) ... Respondents/Respondents 1 and 2 and 4th petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated3.7.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2006 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.I), Poonamallee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.V.JagannathanFor 2nd respondent : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan for R2JUDGMENTThe wife, daughter and mother of the deceased, the claimants 1to 3 have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensationover and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appears for thesecond respondent insurance company.3. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on9.5.2006. The deceased S.Ganesh Babu, aged 26 years old, anemergency medical technologist at S.R.M. Medical College andHospital, was riding on a motor cycle. He was hit by a lorrybelonging to the first respondent driven by its driver in a rashand negligent manner. The said lorry is insured with the secondrespondent insurance company. In that accident, the said GaneshBabu died. On his death, the wife aged 26 years, minor daughteraged 8 month, mother aged 46 years and father aged 54 years filed aclaim for compensation in a sum of Rs.20,03,000/- stating thatthe deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month at the timeof accident.4. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Saravanakumar was examined as P.W.2.Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked as detailed below:-Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of FIR,Ex.A-2 is the photocopy of post-mortem certificate,Ex.A-3 is the legal heir certificate,Ex.A-4 is the school transfer certificate,Ex.A-5 is the Hospital ward technician course certificate,Ex.A-6 is the salary certificate andEx.A-7 is the bank statement account. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the secondrespondent. 5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the same wasdecided by the Tribunal from paragraphs 8 of the award onwards inanswer to point No.2. Though the income of the deceased was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimed at Rs.6,000/- per month which is supported by Exs.A-6 andA-7, the Tribunal in this case fixed the income of the deceased atRs.4,000/- per month. After deducting a sum of Rs.1,300/- towardspersonal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the sum ofRs.2,700/- as loss of contribution to the family of the deceased.By adopting 17 multiplier, the Tribunal fixed the loss ofpecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased at Rs.5,50,800/-(Rs.2,700/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.5,50,800/-). The Tribunal also grantedcompensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunalgranted the following amounts as compensation with interest at7.5% per annum:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.5,50,800/-2Loss of consortium to the wife on thedeath of her husbandRs. 5,000/-3Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/-4Ambulance expensesRs. 5,000/-5Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-TotalRs.5,80,800/-6. In appeal, the counsel for the appellants/claimants 1 to 3placed reliance on Ex.A-6, the salary certificate issued by theemployer, a private medical college hospital, stating that thesalary of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month consolidated. Thisis supported by Ex.A-7 bank statement of account issued by CityUnion Bank wherein a sum of Rs.6,000/- has been credited to theaccount of the deceased on a monthly basis. These documents arenot disputed by the second respondent. In such view of the matter,the Tribunal ought to have accepted Exs.A-6 and A-7 and fixed theincome as claimed and the contribution to the family of thedeceased should be fixed accordingly. The compensation, thereforegranted towards pecuniary loss on the death of the deceased suffersfrom an infirmity as the documents, viz., Exs.A-6 and A-7 have notbeen considered in the correct perspective. For the above statedreason, the appeal has to succeed to the extent that the income ofthe deceased has to be revised as Rs.6,000/- per month. If 1/3 isdeducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss ofcontribution to the family of the deceased will be Rs.4,000/- permonth (i.e.) Rs.48,000/- per annum. The multiplier adopted by theTribunal is not disputed by the second respondent. Therefore, theloss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased will beRs.8,16,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 17 = Rs.8,16,000/-) as againstRs.5,50,800/-. The other amounts granted under conventionalheads are not disputed. Hence, the award of the Tribunal ismodified as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount grantedby theTribunalAmount grantedby this Court1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.5,50,800/-Rs.8,16,000/-2Loss of consortium to thewife on the death of herhusbandRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-3Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/-Rs. 15,000/-4Ambulance expensesRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-5Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-TotalRs.5,80,800/-Rs.8,46,000/-7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowedin part as follows:-(i) The award of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,46,800/-from Rs.5,80,800/-. (ii) The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,65,200/- willsuffer interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petitiontill date of deposit. (iii) Entire enhanced award amount is allotted to the share ofthe minor second appellant. (iv) The second respondent prays for eight weeks' time todeposit the enhanced award amount and is granted.(v) On such deposit, the same shall be invested in anynationalised bank proximate to the place of the residence of thefirst appellant/first claimant for a period of three years andrenewable thereafter till the minor attains majority. The motherof the minor respondent is permitted to withdraw the accruedinterest in respect of the share of the minor once in three monthsdirectly from the bank and for the said purpose the firstappellant/first claimant shall open a savings bank account on thesame branch and the interest amount shall be transferred to theaccount to be maintained by the mother.(vi) The nationalised bank to which the amount will beinvested, shall intimate to the first appellant/mother of the minorof such deposit and confirm the same to the Tribunal that the firstappellant has been duly informed. The Tribunal to instruct thebank accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii) Since the deposit is in the case of minor, the Tribunalis directed to send a report containing the details of the depositto the High Court on such deposit.(viii) There will be no order as to costs. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsTo Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Poonamallee. + 1 c.c. to Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate. S.R.No.3765.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. V. Jaganathan, Advocate. S.R.No.3503. Judgment in C.M.A.No.3801 of 2008MBS (CO)GSK 11.02.2009.