2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Divisional Office, Officers Line,C.S.I. Complex, Vellore v. Selvarani2.Karthick

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.02.2011CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANC.M.A.No.2581 of 2006 And M.P.No.1 of 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Divisional Office, Officers Line,C.S.I. Complex, Vellore. ... Appellant/IInd Respondent.vs.

Selvarani2.Karthick 3. Lakshminarayanan4.Valliammal5.Krishnappa ... Respondents/Petitioners & 1st Respondent. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree made in MACTOP.No.284 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Vellore dated 07.03.2006. For appellant: Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For respondents : Mr.V.Parivallal for R1 to R4JUDGMENTThe Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of an award of Rs.8,09,160/-, in respect of death of a 52 years old employee in MCOP.No.284 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Vellore.

The accident is admitted, liability is admitted and only the quantum is questioned. Even on the quantum, the main ground of attack was that the lower court without taking into consideration that the person would retire at the age of 58 has applied the multiplier theory throughout whereas after retirement, his salary would be reduced and the pension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would be only 50%. This calculation has not been done by the Court below. This is the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the appeal.

The learned counsel for the claimants contended that even though may retire, that does not mean that amount is lost. Nowadays, the pensionis almost 60% and he would have also earned outside after retirement. Hence, if this point is taken into consideration, the calculation made correct and he would have earned as that of his time in service. Therefore, the award granted by the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and correct and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

Heard both parties. The short point for consideration in the appeal is whether the amount granted by the court below is fair, reasonable and correct.

The accident is admitted, liability is admitted. The deceased aged about 52 years old. He was employed in a Government Aided PrivateCollege at Vellore. It is a permanent job. He was earning Rs.9,070/- per month. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 are the salary certificates and Ex.P.6 S.S.L.C. book of the deceased Loganathan. P.W.2 is the employer who has been examined for the proof of salary as well as the age. Since it very clear that the deceased is a teacher, it is also very clear that would have retired at the age of 58 and even P.W.2 has certified that the deceased would have retired on 30.06.2010. Therefore, it is very clear that upto 30.06.2010, he would been earning the full amount of Rs.9,070/-along with any future increments or enhancement. Thereafter, he would have been getting only the pension which is almost equivalent to only 50%in the full amount. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the lower court applied the correct multiplier of 11 but automatically the claimant will not get the full amount.

As per the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Courtreported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 73 in the case of National Insurance CompanyLimited Vs. Shanthi Pandiyan and others, it is very clear that the Courthas to take into account the fact of retirement and thereafter 50% of the income has to be fixed. If the calculation is worked out according to the above referred decision, then the amount works out as follows: Since the deceased was 52 years at the time of the occurrence, for the first six years upto the date of retirement, the original salary Rs.9,000/- per month has to be taken. Hence, deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, the contribution to his family will come to Rs.6,000/-.Hence applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of income for the first six years comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 X 6) For the rest 5 years 50% of Rs.9,000/- is taken as the pension per month, it works out Rs.4,500/- and if 1/3 is deducted towards his personal income, the contribution to his family will be Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence for the rest 5 years the loss of income works out to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.3,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12 X 5). Hence, the total loss of income will be Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.1,80,000/- = Rs.6,12,000/-. Hence, the sum of Rs.7,98,160/- granted by the lower court towards loss of income is reduced to Rs.6,12,000/-.

Under other heads, the lower court has granted a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards cremation which I feel is on the lower side. Hence, it increased to Rs.5,000/- as against the sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the lower court. The lower court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection, which I feel is fair, reasonable and correct. The lower court has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head loss of consortium. At this point, the learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that the body was transported from Thirupati to Vellore. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards transport charges.