Madras High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P. Subhashini Perumal And Ors. on 20 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: II(2005)ACC9, 2005ACJ61
JUDGMENT Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai, is the appellant. The appeal is filed aggrieved against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1403 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No. 4), Chennai.
2. The Claims Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 40,10,000 and passed an award accordingly in respect of the death of one Perumal, the husband of claimant No. 1 and the father of the minor claimant Nos. 2 and 3 and the son of the claimant No. 4 in the road accident on 23.10.1998.
3. In this appeal, the quantum alone is questioned by the insurance company.
4. The Claims Tribunal considering that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 38 years and 5 months as seen from the first page of the S.S.L.C. book, Exh. P-8, which reveals the date of birth of the deceased as 24.5.1960 and that the deceased, who was a B.A. graduate as seen from Exh. P-9, had 12 acres of land in Kattavakkam village, Kancheepuram taluk as seen from Exhs. P-10 to P-12 and further considering that the deceased was appointed as Distribution Manager in Tiru-mala Dairy Private Ltd. as per Exh. P-14, that the deceased was supplying milk to several firms at Madras as seen from Exh. P-15, that the deceased was owning mini lorry as seen from Exh. P-16 R.C. book and Exh. P-17 permit and the statement of accounts of Andhra Bank to show that the deceased was getting income through Tirumala Dairy Private Ltd. as seen from Exhs. P-18 series and P-19 series and the related vouchers Exh. P-20 series and on that account, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased was getting income of Rs. 1,50,000 per annum through agriculture as seen from Exh. P-13 which has been supported by the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and if the lands are leased, the family of the deceased would get Rs. 50,000 per annum and as such, the family of the deceased would get Rs. 1,00,000 per annum, in which after deducting 1/3rd amount of Rs. 34,000 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the deceased could have contributed Rs. 66,000 per annum to his family. The Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that the deceased was getting income of Rs. 7,000 per month by serving as Distribution Manager to Tirumala Dairy Private Ltd. in which after deducting towards his personal expenses, the deceased could have paid a sum of Rs. 4,500 per month to his family and the deceased could have also earned minimum Rs. 10,000 per month as milk supply contractor, in which also after deducting for his personal expenses, he could have contributed to his family a sum of Rs. 7,500 per month and, therefore, the loss of income to the family being Rs. 66,000 per year towards loss of agricultural income, Rs. 54,000 (Rs. 4,500 x 12) per annum for loss of income from the Tirumala Dairy Private Ltd. and Rs. 90,000 (Rs. 7,500 x 12) per annum towards loss of income through milk supply contract and totalling to Rs. 2,10,000 per annum and by adopting multiplier of 16, fixed the loss of income to the family of deceased at Rs. 33,60,000 per annum. The Tribunal added a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 towards future increased income and by adding a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 50,000 for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimant No. 1 and Rs. 25,000 each towards loss of love and affection to the claimant Nos. 2 to 4 and totally fixed the sum of Rs. 40,10,000 and awarded the compensation accordingly to which interest at 9 per cent also granted payable in three months from the date of award and in default at the rate of 12 per cent interest. The award of such compensation is under challenge in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that no documents have been filed to establish the income of the deceased as an agriculturist and as Supervisor in Dairy Farm and also as a milk supply contractor to several firms and since even after the death of the deceased the lands are cultivated by claimants, the income awarded towards loss of income under agriculture cannot be said to be proper. Learned counsel further submitted that claimants have also not proved the expenses and the net profits earned by the deceased. As regards the income as transport contractor by the deceased, the learned counsel vehemently contended that no records have been produced to prove the income earned by the deceased as such. Further, learned counsel argued that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded towards loss of future increased income is also incorrect and in any event very much excessive. The learned counsel also questioned the sum of Rs. 50,000 awarded towards loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1 and also Rs. 25,000 each awarded towards loss of love and affection to the claimant Nos. 2 to 4 and Rs. 25,000 awarded towards funeral expenses.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants supported the award made by the Tribunal towards total compensation that the Tribunal only after considering the evidence let in on the side of the claimants through PWs 1 to 6 and also Exhs. P-10 to P-20, has rightly fixed the total award amount at Rs. 40,10,000 and as such, it need not be disturbed with.
7. We have perused the entire materials and the records.
8. As rightly found by the Claims Tribunal, it is clear from Exh. P-12 that the deceased was owning 12 acres of land in Kattavakkam village, Kancheepuram taluk. The Tahsildar, Kancheepuram, issued the income certificate under Exh. A-13 dated 24.12.1998 that the deceased Perumal was getting income of Rs. 1,50,000 per annum by way of agricultural income, in which according to the Claims Tribunal, on the death of the deceased, the family still can get income by leasing the property to the extent of Rs. 50,000 per annum and as such the loss of income to the family of the deceased could be Rs. 1,00,000 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at Rs. 66,000 per annum as loss of agricultural income to the family of the deceased. The amount arrived at by the Tribunal appears to be on the higher side, in that the income from the agriculture depends upon so many factors that can be taken into account. Considering that the deceased was owning 12 acres of land, certainly, he could have earned at least Rs. 1,00,000 per annum from agriculture, out of which even after the death of the deceased the family of the deceased can get Rs. 60,000 per annum by way of leasing the said land and as such the loss to the family of the deceased could be at Rs. 40,000 per annum, out of which after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the sum of Rs. 26,000 per annum can be arrived at as loss of income to the family of the deceased from the agriculture.
9. As regards the salary income, as rightly found by the Tribunal, the deceased could have earned Rs. 7,000 per month by serving as Distribution Manager to Tiru-mala Dairy Private Ltd., as seen from Exh. P-13, in which, after deducting towards his personal expenses, the deceased could have paid a sum of Rs. 4,500 per month to his family which works out Rs. 54,000 (Rs. 4,500 x 12) per annum, which will be the loss of income by way of salary of the deceased to the family.
10. As regards the income from the transport business and also milk supply contract, the Tribunal recorded finding, considering the evidence let in and also perusing Exhs. P-14 to P-17 and the statement of accounts of Andhra Bank to show that deceased was getting income through Tirumala Dairy Private Ltd. as seen from Exhs. P-18 series and P-19 series and the relating vouchers Exh. P-20 series, that the deceased could have earned minimum Rs. 10,000 per month and after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,500 for personal expenses of the deceased he could have contributed to his family a sum of Rs. 7,500 per month and Rs. 90,000 (Rs. 7,500 x 12) per annum, which amount seems to be on the higher side. Considering Exhs. P-14 to P-20, it will be just and proper to fix that deceased could have earned at least Rs. 90,000 per annum by doing milk supply contract and also by doing transport business out of which if 1/3rd is deducted the remaining amount was Rs. 60,000 per annum which the deceased could have contributed to the family, which is the loss to the family on his death.
11. Therefore, the loss of income to the family of the deceased Perumal is to the extent of Rs. 26,000 per annum from agriculture, Rs. 54,000 per annum by way of salary and Rs. 60,000 per annum by way of income from transport business and milk supply contract and totally Rs. 1,40,000.
12. The deceased was aged about 38 years and 5 months and in which case the proper multiplier is 16 and as such a sum of Rs. 22,40,000 (Rs. 1,40,000 x 16) would be the loss of income to the family on the death of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses which being on the higher side is reduced to Rs. 10,000. Similarly the sum of Rs. 50,000 awarded towards loss of consortium to the widow, the claimant No. 1, is reduced to Rs. 30,000 and the sum of Rs. 75,000 awarded towards loss of love and affection totally to the claimant Nos. 2 to 4, is also reduced to Rs. 20,000. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded towards loss of future increased income cannot be sustained under law. In view of the above, the award amount is modified to Rs. 23,00,000 (Rs. 22,40,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 20,000) and to that extent, the appeal is to be allowed partly.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly modifying the award amount to Rs. 23,00,000 (rupees twenty-three lakh only) with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till date of deposit. No costs. In the award amount the claimant No. 1, the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakh only); the minor claimant Nos. 2 and 3, the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 5,00,000 (rupees five lakh only) each and claimant No. 4, the father of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh only). The award amount of the minor claimant Nos. 2 and 3 is to be invested in any nationalised bank till they attain majority. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 12895 of 2003 is closed.