Madras High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance vs Mrs.H.Anusha on 30 June, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 813
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S. Manikumar, G.R.Swaminathan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 30/6/2017
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
and
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1932 of 2015
and
Cross Objection No.103 of 2015
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited
Registered Office, 21 Patullos Road
Chennai 600 002. ... Appellant
Vs
1. Mrs.H.Anusha
2. H. Mridula (Minor)
rep. By her mother and natural friend
Mrs. Anusha
3. Mrs.R.Nirmala
4. Mr.M.Ramesh Babu
5. G. Mahalakshmi ... Respondents.
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 13/3/2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.7420 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathish
for R.R.1 to 4.
- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) In the accident, which occurred, on 21/11/2013, a 28 year old man, stated to have worked as a Sales Manager, in Indus International Company, died.
2. Legal representatives, wife, aged about 23 years, minor daughter, aged about 1 year, parents aged about 54 and 53 years respectively, joined together filed M.C.O.P.No.7420 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- under various heads.
3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, disputed the negligence attributed to the driver of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN73B-2669 and insured with them and consequently liability. Without prejudice to the above, Insurance Company also disputed the age, avocation, income and quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.
4. On adjudication, the claims Tribunal held that the driver of the TIPPER Multi Axle Goods Vehicle AL Taurus 2518T (Ashok Leyland), bearing Registration No.TN73B-2669, was negligent in causing the accident.
5. Supporting the avocation and income, respondent No.1/wife of the deceased adduced evidence. P.W.3 Proprietor of Indus International, let in supportive evidence, stating that prior to death, the deceased worked as Sales Manager for five years and earned Rs.30,000/- p.m. He has also deposed that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid as bonus. Supporting the oral evidence, respondents have marked Ex.P.7 salary certificate, Ex.P.8 Bank Account statement, Ex.P.10 PAN card, Exs.P.15 to P.17 I.T.return for the annual year 2012 2013, 2013 2014 and 2014 2015, respectively, along with statement of total income and tax paid counterfoils and Exs.P.18 to 20 Form 16, for the assessment years 2012 2013, 2013 2014 and 2014 2015 respectively, Ex.P.21 Registration certificate of Indus International and Ex.P.22 Certificate of IEC Code for Indus International.
6. Upon perusal of the entries made in the above said documents and more particularly, income tax statement and bank statement, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 28 years. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC), Tribunal added 50% of the salary, under the head loss of future prospects.
7. For the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family, the Tribunal has taken Rs.45,000/-, as income. Thereafter, applied 17 multiplier, and after deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses, computed the loss of contribution, as Rs.57,12,000/- (Rs.28,000/- x 12 x 17). That apart, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh under the head loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection to the minor daughter, aged about 1 year and Rs.50,000/- to the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh under the head loss of estate. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.61,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim till deposit.
8. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.61,87,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai has preferred the instant appeal, contending inter alia that in the absence of any proof, Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the monthly income as Rs.30,000/-, and contended that addition of 50% under the head future prospects is also erroneous. Added further, Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal, ought to have deducted more amount towards income tax, instead of deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/-.
9. Inviting the attention of this Court that the Tribunal, ought to have added the actual bonus, received by the deceased while fixing the monthly income and thereafter, to have added 50% of the same under the head future prospects, Mr.S.Sathish, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Cross Objection No.103 of 2015 has been filed. He further contended that when the number of dependants are 4, the Tribunal, ought to have deducted <, towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and accordingly, computed the loss of contribution to the family.
10. Opposing enhancement sought for by the respondents, Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that though father/respondent No.4 is one of the legal representatives entitled to make a claim for compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another {2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, has to be made only after taking note of the dependancy of the claimants. It is also his contention that in the absence of evidence, to substantiate that father of the deceased was a dependant, on the income of the deceased, at the time of accident, deduction of 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution, done by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable. Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company also opposed the addition of bonus, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
12. We have perused the documents/Exs.P.7, P.8, P.10, Exs.P.15 to 22. Though Ex.P.7 salary certificate, does not reflect bonus, entries made in Ex.P.8 Bank accounts statement, categorically reflect periodical monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- from Indus International. A sum of Rs.30,000/- remitted by Indus International, in addition to the monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-, supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/legal representatives that the deceased was paid annual bonus.
13. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Indira Srivastava and Others reported in {2008 (2) SCC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.11, held as follows:-
There are three basic features in the aforementioned statement which require our consideration:
(i). reimbursement of rent would be equivalent to HRA
(ii). Bonus is payable as a part of salary; and
(iii). Contribution to the provident fund.
14. In the light of the above decision, bonus amount of Rs.30,000/-, should be included while determining the monthly income. On the contention of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal ought to have deducted more income towards income tax instead of deducting Rs.2,000/-, we propose to apply the standard procedure under the provisions of Income Tax.
Monthly salary ... Rs. 30,000
Annual Income ... Rs.3,60,000
(30,000 x 12)
Add: Bonus 30,000
--------------
Gross Annual Income ... Rs.3,90,000
Future prospects 50% ... Rs.1,95,000
-------------
Total Income Rs.5,85,000
Exemption under Section 80 C,
80 CC. Rs.1,00,000
--------------
Rs.4,85,000
Upto Rs.2,00,000 Nil
From 2,00,001/- to Rs.5,00,000 10% = Rs.28,500
From 5,00,001/- to Rs.1,00,000/- - 20%
above Rs.10,00,000/- - 30%
--------------
Rs.28,500
Edu cess 3% 855
-------------
Rs.29,355
-------------
Annual Gross Income ... Rs.5,85,000.00
Less: Tax Rs. 29,355.00
-----------------
Rs.5,55,645.00
-----------------
15. On the rival contentions, as regards the percentage of deduction, whether it should be 1/3 or <, during the course of hearing, Mr.S.Sathish, learned counsel for the respondents/legal representatives, fairly submitted that as on today, the fourth respondent, father is engaged.
16. Placing on record the above said submission, we are not inclined to delve into the rival contention.
17. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives, 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses is sustained. After deducting the same, loss of contribution to the family works out to Rs.62,97,310/- (5,55,645 x 2/3 x 17). Tribunal has failed to award a just and reasonable compensation to the father, who lost the love and affection of his son, a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be reasonable. Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation for transportation and damages to clothes, accordingly, awarded Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, respectively.
18. Altogether, the legal representatives of the deceased/cross objectors, in Cross Objection No.103 of 2015, are entitled to compensation of Rs.68,09,310/- (Rupees Sixty Eight lakhs Nine thousand Three hundred and Ten only), with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim, till deposit, as hereunder:-
Loss of contribution to the family ... Rs.62,97,310 Loss of consortium ... Rs. 1,00,000 Loss of love and affection to the minor daughter ... Rs. 2,00,000 Loss of love and affection to the mother ... Rs. 50,000 Loss of Estate ... Rs. 1,00,000 Loss of love and affection for the father ... Rs. 50,000 Transportation ... Rs. 10,000 Damages to clothes ... Rs. 2,000
----------------
Rs.68,09,310
----------------
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ... Rs.61,87,000 Compensation now determined by this Court, on appeal ... Rs.68,09,310
---------------
Rs. 6,22,310
---------------
19. Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/ appellant in C.M.A.No.1932 of 2015, submitted that a sum of Rs.52,26,474/-, has already been deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.7420 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
20. On going through the material on record, we find that at the time of the accident, widow was aged 23 years and the minor son was one year and 8 months old. Having regard to the interest of the minor, there could even be a possibility of remarriage. Paramount welfare of the child is important. Therefore, we propose to apportion the compensation, to the claimants, as hereunder:-
Wife of the deceased ... Rs.25,00,000 Minor Child ... Rs.28,09,310 Father of the deceased ... Rs. 7,50,000 Mother of the deceased ... Rs. 7,50,000
21. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the balance amount, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.p.No.7420 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. The share of the minor/second respondent, shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in fixed deposit, under the reinvestment scheme, initially for a period of three years. The interest accruing on the share of the minor, shall be paid to the 1st respondent/mother of the minor, once in three months, till she attains majority. On such deposit being made, respondents 1, 3 and 4/claimants are permitted, to withdraw the award amount, as apportioned by this Court, by making necessary applications.
23. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1932 of 2015, filed by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Cross Objection No. 103 of 2015, filed by the legal representatives/claimants, is partly allowed.
(S.M.K.,J) (G.R.S.,J) 30th June 2017 Index: yes/No Index: Yes/No mvs. To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
S.MANIKUMAR,J a n d G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J mvs.
C.M.A. No.1932 of 2015a n d Cross Objection No.103 of 2015 30/6/2017