Madras High Court
Kannan vs S.Balasubramanian on 25 August, 2014
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
C.M.A.Nos.3054 of 2009 &
3099 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
CMA No.3054 of 2009
1.Kannan
2.K.Dineshkumar ... Appellants
vs.
1.S.Balasubramanian
2.L.Manikandan
3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Branch Manager
5-Big Bazzar Street,
Dharapuram,
Erode District.
4.S.Paramasivan ... Respondents
CMA No.3099 of 2013
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager
5-Big Bazzar Street,
Dharapuram. ... Appellant
Vs
1.V.Kannan
2.K.Dineshkumar
3.S.Balasubramanian
4.L.Manikandan
5.A.Paramasivam
6.The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office,
No.11-19, 20 Government Arts College Road,
Coimbatore 18.
7.R.Peter ... Respondents
Common prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree in MCOP No.298 of 2009 dated 20.04.2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore.
For appellant : M/s.R.Nalliyappan
in CMA No.3054/2009
and R1 & R2 in CMA
No.3099/2013
For R3 in CMA No.3054 : Mr.K.Suryanarayanan
of 2009 and appellant
in CMA No.3099/2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
(For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as referred by Tribunal) Both the appeals have been filed as against the award dated 20.04.2009 made in MCOP No.298 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, claimants/appellants have filed C.M.A.No.3054 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation. CMA No.3099 of 2013 has been filed by the insurance company stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under is extremely on the higher side.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, these appeals are disposed of by way of a common order.
4. The claimants are the husband and son of the deceased Revathy, aged about 40 years at the time of accident.
5. Since the present appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation, I am not dealing with the finding rendered by the Tribunal with regard to the other aspects of the award.
6. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Accountant cum Typist in a courier service and earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. In order to prove the income earned by the deceased, on the side of the claimants, the husband of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 & P.W.3 and marked documents as Exs.A1 to A14.
7. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,814/- and thereafter by deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses and by adopting multiplier 16, has arrived at a sum of Rs.6,16,192/- as loss of income to the claimants. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of services to the family and thus passed an award for a sum of Rs.7,80,692/-.
8. Now, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal in CMA No.3099 of 2013 stating that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of services is unwarranted. In this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal after having awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,192/- under the head loss of income, ought not to have awarded another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- separately under the head loss of service to the family.
9. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the 1st claimant/husband of the deceased had lost both his legs in a road accident since his legs have been amputated below the knee. He is totally crippled and his day-to-day life was taken care of by his wife and now due to the death of his wife, he is suffering a lot to carry on his day-to-day life and hence considering this aspect only, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of service to the family and therefore no infirmity could be found in the amount awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of services. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the tribunal, while calculating the compensation under the head of loss of income failed to add 50% of the amount towards future prospects and thereby 50% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects and the amount awarded by the tribunal has to be enhanced.
10. Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. The evidence on record would show that the first claimant/husband of the deceased has lost both his legs in a road accident and both his legs below the knee has been amputated. It is the evidence of the first claimant/P.W.1, that since he has lost his both legs, he was carrying on his day-to-day life only with the help of his wife and since his wife had died in the accident, he is suffering a lot to carry on his normal activities in the day-to-day life. Considering this aspect only, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of service to the family and absolutely I find no infirmity in the award passed by the tribunal under this head.
11. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal, while calculating the loss of income, ought to have added 50% of the income towards future prospects of the deceased which has not been done in this case. Hence, if the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.4,814/- and 50% is added towards future prospects, it works out to Rs.7221/- (4814 + 2407). The annual loss of income works out to Rs.86,652/-(7221 x 12) and if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the annual loss of contribution to the family works out to Rs.57,768/-. The correct multiplier that has to be applied in this case is 16 and if so, by applying multiplier 16, the loss of income works out to Rs.9,24,288/-. Hence, I am of the opinion that Rs.6,16,192/- awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced and accordingly, Rs.6,16,192/- awarded under the head loss of income is hereby enhanced to Rs.9,24,288/-. Except the above modification, the amount awarded by the Tribunal stands confirmed. Consequently, the total amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.7,80,692/- is enhanced to Rs.10,88,788/-, break-up details is as follows -
Loss of income ... Rs.9,24,288/-
Funeral expenses ... Rs. 2,000/- Loss of estate ... Rs. 2,500/- Loss of love & affection (Rs.5000/- each to claimants 1 & 2) ... Rs. 10,000/- Loss of service ... Rs. 1,50,000/- ------------------- Total ... Rs.10,88,788/- ==========
12. I find that the value of the appeal in CMA No.3054 of 2009 itself is restricted only to Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, by adding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the award of Rs.7,80,692/- awarded by the tribunal, the compensation works out to Rs.9,80,692/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.9,81,000/-.
13. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore in MCOP No.298 of 2008 dated 20.04.2009 is hereby enhanced to Rs.9,81,000/- and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimants in CMA No.3054 of 2009 is allowed. Consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the insurance company in CMA No.3099 of 2013 is dismissed and Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
14. In view of the above enhancement of the award, the appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest and the balance amount of Rs.1,81,000/- is permitted to be withdrawn by the 2nd claimant alongwith proportionate interest, after deducting the amount already withdrawn by them, if any.
25.08.2014 Index:Yes/No rgr To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Records, High Court of Madras.
R.SUBBIAH, J., rgr C.M.A.No.3054 of 2009 & C.M.A. No.3099 of 2013 25.08.2014