Madras High Court
K. Jeyagopal vs Nachiammai on 12 July, 2006
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN
C.M.A. NPD S No.303 of 1998
1. K. Jeyagopal
2. National Insurance Company Limited
Athur Town, Salem .. Appellant
-Vs-
1. Nachiammai
2. Veerappan ..Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1997 made in
M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1635 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge, Salem).
!For appellants : Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan
^For 1st respondent : No appearance
For 2nd respondent : Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran
:JUDGMENT
Challenging the award dated 23.09.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge, Salem) (the Tribunal) in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1635 of 1995, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the death of the deceased Kannappan, the respondents herein who were the petitioners before the Tribunal filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1635 of 1995 seeking a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is their case that on 12.12.1994, when their son Kannappan, along with three others, traveled in an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TN-27-5274 from Athur to Sabarimala. On that fateful day, at 3.05 a.m., when the car was nearing Ammaiyanaickanoor in the Dindigul Madurai road, its driver, with a view to make way for the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the car and collided against a bridge and in that accident, their son Kannappan sustained serious injuries and died in the hospital.
3. In the said petition, they contended that the deceased Kannappan was aged 28 years and was running agency business by name Vairam Agency and derived an income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and since he had died, they have suffered loss of income and agony and therefore, they are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.12 lakhs.
4. The second appellant Insurance Company filed a counter before the Tribunal and contended that the accident was not caused due to the carelessness and negligence of the car driver and further, the driving licence was not produced and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company has also questioned the age, income and occupation of the deceased.
5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and Baranidharan and Rajavel who were the co-passengers in the car were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and as many as 22 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.
6. The Tribunal, after considering both the forms of evidence and holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and the first respondent being the owner of the car and the second respondent with whom the car has been insured, are variously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation, passed an award for Rs.3,00,000/- and apportioned the amount between the parents of the deceased.
7. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has put forward two-fold submission namely, (1) that the accident was not solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car in question since the accident occurred only when the car driver tried to avoid an oncoming motor cycle in high speed on the opposite side and (2) that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the compensation at Rs.3,00,000/- by applying the multiplier of 18 when the age of the deceased was 32 years and the parents were aged 49 and 52 years respectively.
8. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the accident took place in the manner as explained above. No witness was examined on the side of the respondents in respect of negligence. Furthermore, the car driver himself has admitted that when he had driven the car rashly, the car dashed against the bridge on the left side of the road. Taking into consideration the exhibits filed in support of the claimants, especially the First Information Report, the sketch showing the manner of accident, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Accident Register, charge sheet and post-mortem certificate, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the car driver and accordingly, fixed the negligence on the part of the car driver.
9. The above aspects would reveal, rather persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that the occurrence took place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and I find no reason to disbelieve the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the negligence on the part of the car driver in the absence of any evidence on the side of the respondents before the Tribunal and accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence is confirmed.
10. The next question before this Court is whether there is substance in the claim that the deceased had supported the family and whether the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is justifiable and in accordance with the principles laid down in the assessment of quantum of compensation.
11. P.W.3, the father of the deceased has deposed that his son, being a distributor for various consumer product firms, was earning in the range of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and used to give around Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- to his family. But no accounts or ledgers were produced before the Tribunal to substantiate that the deceased was earning to the extent deposed by P.W.3. Hence, the Tribunal has presumed that the deceased would have earned Rs.2,000/- per month and arrived at his annual income as Rs.24,000/-. The age of the deceased being 28 years, which is corroborated by Ex.P.16, the school certificate bearing the date of birth of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and fixed the loss of income as Rs.4,32,000/-. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the pecuniary damages at Rs.2,88,000/- besides awarding Rs.5,000/- for bringing the corpse from Madurai and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded to the respondents herein.
12. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2005) 12 SCC 190 in the case of Kanhaiyalal Kataria & Others Vs. Mukul Chaturvedi & Others for the age group of 30-35 years, applied the multiplier of 17 and the relevant paragraphs read as under: (paras 2 and 3) This appeal is filed only for the enhancement of quantum of compensation. The deceased was 32 years of age. He was a bachelor and was doing ice cream business. An award in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been passed taking the multiplier of 16. Our attention has been drawn to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which we find that for age group between 30 to 35 years, multiplier of 17 has been indicated. Learned counsel for the claimants made submissions seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the income of the deceased has not been properly estimated. We are not going into any other aspect except the question of proper multiplier for computation of compensation. In our opinion, by taking the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation deserves to be increased. The compensation amount may be suitably recomputed by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 17 and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the increased amount be also granted.
13. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 28 years and as per Schedule II to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the proper multiplier to be applied for the age group of 25-30 years is 18. Thus, the application of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal has much relevance to the above proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and as such, the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- arrived at by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 18 is justifiable. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation to confirm the award fixed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the quantum of compensation also is confirmed.
In the light of the discussion made above and the ruling of the Supreme Court cited supra, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed without any order as to costs.
cad To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal III Additional District Judge, Salem
2. The Record Keeper V.R. Section, High Court of Madras