Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs R.Kala on 25 July, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.07.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM C.M.A.No.3215 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Office, No.45, Moore Street, Chennai-600 001. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent -vs- 1. R.Kala 2. Minor R.Sudhan 3. Minor R.Edhan 4. Vellaithai 5. M.Muthu ... Respondents / Petitioners 6. P.Ramesh Kumar ... Respondent / 1st Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against the Decree and the judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.4505 of 2006 dated 03.02.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal For R1 to R5 : Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja For R6 : Given Up ***** J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.Dhanapalan,J.,) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the Decree and the judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.4505 of 2006 dated 03.02.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The appellant was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The respondents 1 to 5 / claimants are wife, minor sons and parents of the deceased Ravi respectively, who, while driving his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN-20-J-5637 from Koyambedu to Anna Nagar, met with an accident on 08.06.2005 at about 22.20 hours on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-09-AJ-3774, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased aged 35 years was the owner of Hotel Suriya Chettinad Restaurant, Chennai and also 43rd Ward Councillor, Ambattur Municipal Corporation. The deceased was earning not less than Rs.35,000/- per month. The 1st respondent / 6th respondent herein is the owner of the lorry. The petitioners / claimants, by filing claim petition before the Tribunal, sought compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and the following exhibits were marked:
Exhibits Description of Documents Ex.P1 Copy of FIR Ex.P2 Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P3 Copy of Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P4 Death Certificate Ex.P5 Legalheirship Certificate Ex.P6 Election result declaration (MC) of the deceased Ex.P7 M.C.Identity Card of the deceased Ex.P8 PAN card of the deceased Ex.P9 Registration Certificate for Hotel Surya Ex.P10 Licence from Corporation of Chennai for Hotel Surya Ex.P11 Lunch order from SETC Ex.P12 Coffee and Tea order from SETC Ex.P13 TDS Certificate Ex.P14 Letter from SETC for issuing cheques Ex.P15 Canara Bank statement (subject to objection) belongs to Hotel Surya Ex.P16 Copy of Driving Licence of P.W.2 On behalf of the appellant / 2nd respondent, neither any witness was examined nor exhibit marked.
4. On appreciation of materials before it, the Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.19,90,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. (excluding the period between 30.10.2008 to 16.11.2011 during which period MCOP was dismissed for default) from the date of petition (04.12.2006) till the date of deposit and the break-up details are as follows:
Loss of Pecuniary Benefits (Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 16) - Rs.19,20,000/-
Loss of consortium - Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000x4) - Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 10,000/- --------------------- Total - Rs.19,90,000/- ---------------------
The said award is being challenged by the appellant / Insurance Company on the following grounds:
i) that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law, against the weight of the evidence and probabilities of the case;
ii) that the cause of the accident was due to the deceased and not the driver of the lorry and the Tribunal ought to have contributed the negligent on the part of the deceased also;
iii) that the learned Trial Judge failed to note that there is no loss of income to the respondents / claimants, since the income derived from the Hotel is still available. The claimants have also not produced any proof for the income of the deceased and the notional income of Rs.10,000/- taken by the Trial Court is not supported by any document.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant / 2nd respondent would submit that the Tribunal failed to note that the accident occurred on account of the negligent riding of motorcycle by the injured alone, who suddenly crossed the road without any indication and therefore, liability cannot be fixed on the appellant insurance company alone. He has also submitted that without any proof or material to substantiate the income of the deceased, the Tribunal derived the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, which is wholly unsustainable.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants / respondents has vehemently contended that the Tribunal, on analyzing entire oral and documentary evidence and upon considering the deposition of P.W.2, has held that the driver of the lorry alone is responsible for the accident and therefore, contributory negligence does not arise in this case at all. It is his further contention that since claim was made on the basis of income of the deceased showing as Rs.35,000/, the notional income arrived at by the Tribunal as Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be faulted with, instead there is every justification for this Court to enhance the compensation. Thus, the award of the Tribunal cannot be questioned and the appeal to be dismissed in toto.
7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
8. A circumspection of the fact would reveal that on 08.06.2005 at about 22.20 hours, when the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN-20-J-5637 from Koyambedu to Anna Nagar, the lorry, insured with the appellant insurance company, bearing registration No.TN-09-AJ-3774, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased, resulting in sustenance of multiple injuries and death subsequently. As against the claim of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,90,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / Insurance Company is before this Court for determination of their liability by this Court.
9. To the above claim, appellant / 2nd respondent has made a statement to the effect that it was the deceased, who did not follow the rules of the road and he could have avoided the accident in case he had exercised due care and caution. It is also obligatory on the part of the claimants to prove that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN.09-AJ-3774 was insured with the respondent and the policy was in force at the time of accidence, as the insurance company has not received the claim form from the 1st respondent. Likewise, it must be proved that the vehicle has a valid permit, FC, RC besides proving possession of valid driving licence by the driver of the lorry. Therefore, in absence of all these vital information, the liability cannot be fastened against the insurance company alone.
10. The Tribunal, on looking into the claim and rival submissions, has framed the following two questions for consideration:
i) Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle?
ii) Whether the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants / petitioners? If so, what is the amount of compensation payable?
11. The Tribunal has firstly examined the negligence aspect and also the circumstances, under which, the lorry insured with the appellant insurance company and the motorcycle, were driven by the driver and the deceased respectively. The claim petition before the Tribunal was filed by the claimants / petitioners under Sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, which makes a provision for application for compensation arising out of an accident, which after few amendments reads as under:
Section 166 Application for compensation:-
(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the Legal Representatives of the deceased; pr
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the Legal Representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the Legal Representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such Application for compensation, the Application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the Legal Representatives of the deceased and the Legal Representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as Respondents to the Application.
(2) Every Application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such Application, the Application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the Applicant. In an application filed under Section 166, claiming compensation, it is necessary for a claimant to prove negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. The burden is on the claimant to establish the negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle and on proof thereof, the claimant is entitled to compensation.
12. Keeping in mind the above, in order to arrive at a firm decision in respect of 1st point, the Tribunal has first analyzed the cause for the death of the deceased in the accident, which had taken place on 100 ft. road near Koyambedu and perused the copy of both FIR, marked as Ex.P1, which has been registered by the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, Koyambedu in Crime No.80/KM3/05 for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC, 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and also charge sheet filed against the driver of the lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-09-AJ-3774. Apart from this, the evidence of P.W.2, who was added as a witness on the side of the petitioners, had been given more weightage by the Tribunal, who deposed that the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-02-J-5637 was driven by the rider slowly and observing the rules of road and it was the lorry, which came behind the auto rickshaw in which P.W.2 was travelling and then dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, the motorcycle was dragged to a distance of 50 ft. He has also deposed that the wheel of the lorry crushed the rider of the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot. The driver of the auto rickshaw gave the complaint to the Police in this regard. Having agreed and inspired with the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal refused to disbelieve his evidence and held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, resulting in sustainment of injuries and the subsequent death.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the factor and circumstances of negligence in the case of Vijay Kumar Kulhar vs Rajasthan State Road Transport (C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889 & 3890 of 2008) decided on 27.07.2009, has held as under:
17. P.W.5 Ghosh Mohammad driver of RSRTC Bus had lodged a report in the Police Station, Jhunjhunu in respect of the accident, registered as FIR No. 33/83 for the offence under Section 279 IPC against the present appellant. Exh. 26 is the said report. No doubt, it is true that appellant has been acquitted of the said offence but nothing turns on his acquittal.
18. After the receipt of the report, police had prepared a spot map Exh.1 wherein it has been noticed that left side of the truck had hit the right side of the bus, as a result whereof, the bus was found in hanging position on the left side of the bridge.
19. The mechanical examination report of the truck is marked as Exh. 37 in which it has been noticed that the mudguard on the left side of the truck was dented and there were marks of peeling off and dents on the left side gate of the truck.
20. Exh. 38 is the mechanical examination report of the bus according to which front portion of the bus was damaged and was lying on the floor, the steering control was also lying broken and there were damages on the right side of the bus.
21. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clearly made out that left side of the truck collided with right side of the bus and then it reached the main road. P.W.1 Mahinder Kumar Sharma conductor of the bus and P.W.5, driver of the bus have deposed in one voice that the bus was going at a moderate speed whereas the truck came at a high speed and dashed violently to the rear right side of the bus as a result of which the bus dashed against the bridge and broke the wall and was lying in a hanging position.
22. After carefully going through the FIR, the inspection reports of both the vehicles and the oral evidence available on record, it is clearly made out that it was truck driven by the appellant which had come in a rash and negligent manner from behind and while attempting to overtake the bus had dashed against it causing damage.
23. Once it is held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant, then obviously the appellant would be liable to pay the amount of compensation, which has been assessed by learned Single Judge at Rs. 40,000/-.
14. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has also elaborately dealt with the negligence aspect in M.N. Rajan and others vs Konnali Khalid Haji and another, reported in [ILR 2004 KAR 3731] as under:
23. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of GENERAL MANAGER, BANGALORE TRANSPORT SERVICE v. N. NARASIMHAIAH AND ORS., 1976 ACJ 379 held as follows:
"If it is found that the negligent act of omission of a driver was the proximate and efficient cause of an accident, it will not be a valid defence to say that the person injured was also negligent unless it is shown that the person injured had made it extremely difficult for the other to avoid the accident. In this case the evidence of the witness referred to above clearly establishes that Raju was riding the cycle along when the vehicle came from behind him and dashed against the cycle. The evidence of the driver of the bus, if scrutinized carefully, clearly goes to show that he did not see at all how the accident happened. It is only after he heard the sound he stopped the bus. Therefore, his story that it was due to the negligence of Raju the accident happended cannot be believed. A person driving a motor vehicle on a busy road like the one in question must drive the vehicle with reasonable care strictly observing the traffic regulations and the rules of the road so as not to imperil the safety of the other persons whether they are pedestrians or cyclists or others who have a similar right to use the highways on which he drives it.
24. It is well settled that the burden of establishing the defence of contributory negligence is on the defendant who admits that on account of the conduct of the plaintiff, his negligence had gone into the background and it was the conduct of the plaintiff that resulted in the accident; it is not for the claimant to disprove it. In the case of SHARADA BAI v. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (supra) speaking about the burden of proving contributory negligence, the Court held: "The burden of proving contributory negligence is on the cross-objectors in this case. It is not for the Appellant to disprove it. If the tort-feasor's negligence or breach of duty is established as causative of the damage, the onus is on him to establish that the victim's contributory-negligence was a substantial or cooperating cause. In order to establish the defence of contributory negligence the propounder of that defence must prove, first, that the victim failed to take reasonable care of himself or, in other words, such care as a man of ordinary prudence would have done and that was a contributory-cause of the accident. The amount of care which a person could reasonably be expected to take, must needs vary with the circumstances and the conditions actually prevailing at the material point of time. However, it is relevant to note that, in order to discharge the burden of proof, it is unnecessary for the propounder of that defence to adduce evidence about the matter. Contributory negligence can be - and very often is- inferred from the evidence adduced already on the claimants behalf or from the perceptive facts, either admitted or found established, on a balance of probabilities in the case.
25. In this case, there is neither pleading nor any proof of contributory negligence. Further, contributory negligence on the part of the deceased or the driver of the motor cycle cannot be inferred on the basis of the evidence on record. In the case of DARYAOBAI AND ORS. v. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 1996 ACJ 1233 a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while holding that if the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is not examined in the case, an adverse influence can be drawn, was pleased to observe that - "The statement of Kanhaiya Lal as corroborated by the statement of Amol Das goes to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the jeep. It may also be observed here that if a party specially the owner of the vehicle fails to examine the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, an adverse inference will have to be drawn. This is not the case of respondent Union of India that the driver is not available or his attendance could not be procured despite efforts being made. Thus, it would be deemed that the driver of the jeep was purposely withheld and was not produced in the court for examination and cross-examination. In such a situation, we are inclined to believe Kanhaiya Lal and Amol Das that goes to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep owned by the Union of India. Even otherwise, it is the driver of the vehicle which is required to keep constant vigil on the road and vehicle coming from opposite direction including other vehicles overtaking the vehicle driven by him and, therefore, he is the best person to depose about the manner of accident. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal and further hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the jeep of Narcotics Department."
In this case also, evidence of PW-2 proves that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. Quite curiously, the driver of the lorry was not examined by the owner or insurer of the vehicle. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against them. Therefore, the plea of contributory negligence urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 for the first time in this appeal is required to be noticed only to be rejected in limine.
15. Thus, based on the oral and documentary evidence and taking into account the principles laid down in the above referred cases, negligence was fixed on the part of the driver of the lorry by the learned Tribunal, which decision, in our considered opinion, can be a justifiable one and therefore, there is no reason to discard the same to take a contradictory view.
16. The next question, which arose for consideration is as to whether the compensation, which was ordered to be paid by the 2nd respondent / appellant insurance company, to the claimants are in accordance with law or not. In order to deal with the said question, the Tribunal has primarily perused all the exhibits marked before it particularly, Ex.P3 (postmortem report) and Ex.P4 (death certificate). The postmortem report states that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, owing to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which itself is a clear indication that death was caused on account of the accident only. To ascertain, as to who are all the legal heirs of the deceased, Ex.P5 (legalheirship certificate) was taken into consideration and Ex.P8 (Pan Card of the deceased) was relied on by the Tribunal in order to derive the exact age of the deceased, which has shown the date of birth of the deceased as between 34 and 35. Therefore, multiplier of 16 has been applied, which is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Sarla Varma case. Apart from the above, the deceased, besides an elected 43rd Ward Councillor of Ambattur Municipality as per Ex.P6 (Declaration of Election Result) was also the owner of the hotel by name Hotel Surya Chettinadu Restaurant as seen in Ex.P9 (Certificate of Registration in respect of the said hotel) and Ex.P10 was marked for the proof of payment of licence fee and professional tax to the Corporation of Chennai in respect of the said hotel. Above all, The State Express Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu Limited (SETC) has placed order for supply of variety meals, curd rice, full rice parcels to the employees attached to CMBT and CHD Depot and the letter of placement of orders is marked as Ex.P11. Thus, considering the overall circumstances, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses, Rs.10,000/- pm was assessed as the loss of pecuniary benefits to the claimants due to the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has also taken note of the age of the deceased approximately between 34 and 35 as per Ex.P8 and applied the multiplier of 16 as per the table arrived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, thereby fixing the total loss of income to the family due to the demise of the deceased as Rs.19,20,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as under:
20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A.
17. In Sarla Verma's case, the Supreme Court has also compared the multiplier indicated in various decisions with the multiplier mentioned in the second schedule of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and identified a table. Relevant portion of the said judgment would read as under:
"19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 (10) SCC 720], this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 (6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years):
Age of deceased Multiplier Scale as envisaged in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporat-ion, Trivandr-um v. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994(2) SCC 176 Multiplier Scale as adopted by U.P. State Road Transport Corporat-ion and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996 (4) SCC 362 Multiplier Scale in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996(4) SCC 362 as clarified in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Charlie and another, 2005 (10) SCC 720 Multiplier Specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to M.V. Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Upto 15 years
-
-
-15 20
15 to 20 years 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 years 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 years 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 years 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 years 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 years 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 years 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 years 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 years 8 10 9 8 8 61 to 65 years 6 8 7 5 6 Above 65 years 5 5 5 5 5
20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
18. In addition to the above, since the wife of the deceased has lost her husband at the young age of 28, which was assessed from the legal heirship certificate, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st respondent / claimant, Rs.10,000/- each for love and affection to the respondents 2 to 5 and finally Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, were added to draw a full-fledged compensation of Rs.19,90,000/-. The entitlement of compensation to each of the claimants was also apportioned by the Tribunal.
19. Almost a century back in Taff Vale Railway Co. vs. Jenkins, 1913 AC 1, the House of Lords laid down the test that award of damages in fatal accident, action is compensation for the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit by the deceased's family. The purpose of award of compensation is to put the defendants of the deceased, who had been bread-winner of the family, in the same position financially as if he had lived his natural span of life. This Court also in C.K.Subramania Iyer and others vs. T.Kunhikuttan Nair and others, 1970 (2) SCR 688, reiterated the legal philosophy highlighted in Taff Vale Railway, for award of compensation in claim cases and said that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations
20. In entirety, keeping in mind the above factors, the Tribunal has touched upon every corner of the claim and given thoughtful consideration for each and every aspect especially with respect to negligence and liability aspect. The adoption of multiplier is also well within the settled principles of law based on the oral and documentary evidence, placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has determined the compensation in a very reasonable and fair manner, which, in our consideration opinion, does not warrant any interference by this Court, as such determination of quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is perfectly valid in law. It was argued on the side of the respondents / claimants that the notional income so fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.10,000/- pm is lesser, inspite of production of documentary proof towards the income of the deceased showing as Rs.35,000/-pm. Though there is a merit in the said contention, in absence of any petition for cross objection, we are not inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under various heads by the Tribunal.
21. Therefore, we find no reasons whatsoever to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[V.D.P.,J.] [G.C.,J.] 25.07.2014 Index: Yes Internet: Yes ar To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai V.Dhanapalan, J.
and G.Chockalingam, J.
ar C.M.A.No.3215 of 2013 25.07.2014