Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Lakshmi on 8 April, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A(MD)No.469 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Divisional Office II, Periyamilaguparai, Trichy. .. Appellant Vs 1.R.Lakshmi 2.R.Jeyakumar 3.R.Senthilkumar 4.R.Gomathi .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.940 of 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli. !For Appellant ... Mr.D.Sivaraman for Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil ^For Respondents ... Mr.B.Prasana Vinoth for Mr.A.S.Gopalamanikandan :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.940 of 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 31.01.2006 awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.8,56,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs and fifty six thousand only) under the following sub-heads:
For loss of consortium -Rs. 10,000.00 For loss of love and affection -Rs. 50,000.00 For loss of income -Rs.7,60,000.00 For medical expenses -Rs. 32,000.00 For transport expenses -Rs. 1,000.00 For funeral expenses -Rs. 3,000.00
--------------- Total -Rs.8,56,000.00
---------------
4. Animadverting upon the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/ Transport Corporation filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds; the gist and kernel of it would run thus:
The Tribunal without adhering to any formula, simply awarded under the sub head loss of income/dependency, a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and sixty thousand only). Under the caption loss of love and affection a huge amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was awarded, which also was without based on any norms.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded 'just compensation'?
The point:
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/ Transport Corporation would reiterate the grounds as found set out in the grounds of appeal, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would echo the cri de coeur of the claimants and highlight that the compensation could have been more as the deceased, a Railway servant, viz., Grade I labour, who had future prospects, died in the accident leaving behind his wife and children.
7. The perusal of the Judgment of the Tribunal would say the least is far from satisfactory for the reason that a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and sixty thousand only) was awarded under the caption loss of income/dependency, without adhering to any formula. Towards loss of love and affection a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was awarded, which also is not based on any recognised principle.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/ Transport Corporation would advance his arguments that since the deceased died at the age of above 51, the multiplier 9 would be appropriate, considering his remaining years of service, but for his untimely death and as a sequitur the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles contemplating multiplier 11, may not be adhered to. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would movingly submit that but for the untimely death of the deceased, he would have lived for nine more years and by that time he would have got promotion and/or might have got the benefit of two pay scales as well as increments.
9. In these circumstances, this Court has to adhere to aposteriori approach and strike a balance between the two. The pay certificate deserves consideration in these circumstances. Ex.P6 is the pay certificate issued by the authority concerned and it was marked before the Tribunal, which relied upon it and it is extracted here under for ready reference:
"SOUTHERN RAILWAY PAY CERTIFICATE NAME : M.RENGANATHAN T.No.444 PF No.: 03363120 DESIGNATION : Techn Gr.I/ELF/EMW/GOC FATHER's Name : S.MUTHUKANNU He is in receipt of Pay and Allowances at the following rates in the month of July 2001.
Earnings Rs.
Deductions Rs.
BI PAY RATE PER PAY D.A. C C A NOT FOT 5125 75 2204 65 70 640
---------8179
---------
PF SUBSCRI RENT WATER CHG ELEC CHG CMTD INSTITUTE LIC RLY/GP INS VPF FEST ADV CONSUMER LOAN ARREAR EE CHG PDAS PROF TAX ECC LOAN 427 62 1 239 360 10 631 30 1000 150 1337 114 5 50 1060
------5476
------
Gross pay : 8179 Deductions : 5476
------
Pay to bank : 2700
------
Bank 02702 A/C No.030533 WORK SHOP PERSONNEL OFFICER/GOC"
10. My mind redolent with the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors. reported in 2007 AIOL 1880. As such only certain recoveries could be excluded from calculating the monthly income of the deceased and not the entire deductions and accordingly if worked out, the following sub heads could be excluded from computing the deceased's monthly income, i.e., Rent, Water charge, Electric charge, Institute, Consumer loan and Professional Tax and it comes to Rs.6680/- [8179 - (62+1+239+10+1137+50) = 6680] (Rupees six thousand six hundred and eighty only).
11. The learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants would submit that but for the untimely death of the deceased, certainly, he would have improved his income. His arguments cannot simply be brushed aside as baseless. Considering the loss of future prospects of the deceased and the consequential benefit, which the claimants would have got but for the untimely death of the deceased, some increase could be foreseen and accordingly instead of choosing the sum of Rs.6680/- (Rupees six thousand six hundred and eighty only) per month as the monthly support divided by the claimants, it could be taken as Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only). It is a trite proposition of law that 1/3 of the income should be deducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive irrespective of the fact whether the deceased lead the life of a Bohemian or that of a Spartan.
12. Relating to choosing of the multiplier is concerned, a catena of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court would highlight that there could be no hard and fast rule and it all depends upon the fact of each and every case. Here, the deceased died at his age of 51, leaving behind his wife and three children, who are aged about 22,20,18 years and there is nothing to show that they are married. Furthermore, among the three children, one is an unmarried daughter. These are all weighing much in the mind of the Court in choosing the multiplier. Even though the multiplier as found suggested in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be taken as conclusive; nonetheless the special features as highlighted supra involved in this case, warrants the multiplier 11 to be chosen as the appropriate one. Unless such multiplier is chosen, a significant compensation cannot be computed, which would be of some succour to the claimants. The two sons of the deceased have not made their head start in their life because they attained majority shortly before the demise of their father. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of income' shall be re- fixed at Rs.6,16,000/- [ 7000 X 12 X 11 X 2/3 = 6,16,000/-] (Rupees six lakhs and sixteen thousand only).
13. Under the caption 'loss of consortium' a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) was awarded, which could be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only).
14. Under the caption loss of love and affection relating to the claimants 2 to 4, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was awarded, which is on the higher side and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) could be awarded, relating to each of the children and it come to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).
15. Towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) was awarded based on bills, which warrants no interference.
16. Towards transport expenses a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and relating to funeral expenses a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) were awarded, which require no interference as those amounts are keeping in commensurate with the prevailing rate of expenditure.
17. Towards pain and sufferings no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal, which warrants Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be awarded, in view of the admitted factual position that the deceased died not immediately, but after ten days. Accordingly, the compensation is modified as under:
For loss of consortium -Rs. 15,000.00 For loss of love and affection -Rs. 30,000.00 For loss of income -Rs.6,16,000.00 For medical expenses -Rs. 32,000.00 For transport expenses -Rs. 1,000.00 For funeral expenses -Rs. 3,000.00 For pain and sufferings -Rs. 10,000.00
--------------- Total -Rs.7,07,000.00
---------------
18. The learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants made an extempore submission to the effect that the claimants might be allowed to withdraw the amount as they are badly in need of money. The claimants appear to be educated. Hence, in these circumstances I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for ordering withdrawal of the amount by all the petitioners on their filing a petition before the Tribunal.
19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.8,56,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs and fifty six thousand only) to Rs.7,07,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and seven thousand only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% as directed by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed.
smn To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli.