Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gattawadi. Venugopal Kalpana on 25 June, 2013
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.819 of 2010 and 2043 of 2013 C.M.A.No.819 of 2010: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 13-A, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. .. Appellant. vs. 1.Gattawadi. Venugopal Kalpana 2.S.Ezhumalai 3.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Subagovindam Building, Imperial Road, Cuddalore-2. 4.Thiyagarajan. .. Respondents. C.M.A.No.2034 of 2013: Gattawadi. Venugopal Kalpana .. Appellant. vs. 1.S.Ezhumalai 2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Subgagovindam Building, Imperial Road, Cuddalore-2. 3.Thiyagarjan 4.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 13-A, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore-1. .. Respondents. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated 21.8.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Chief Judicial Magistrate Court], Cuddalore. For Appellant in CMA No.819/2010 : Mr.S.Arun Kumar and 4th Respondent in CMA No.2043/2013 For 1st Respondent in Ms.Jayanthi Venkatesh CMA No.819/2010 : for and Appellant in Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh CMA No.2043/2013 For 3rd Respondent in CMA No.819/2010 : Mr.N.Vijaya Raghavan and 2nd Respondent in CMA No.2043/2013 COMMON JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J Challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Cuddalore awarding compensation of Rs.62,99,800/- for the death of deceased Anis Gounalane in the road traffic accident on 21.6.2003, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.891 of 2010. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimant has preferred C.M.A.No.2043 of 2013 for enhancement. For convenient, the parties are referred as per their array in C.M.A.No.891 of 2010.
2. Brief facts are that on 21.6.2003 at about 3.30 A.M., deceased Anis Gounalane and his wife - Gattawadi. Venugopal Kalpana (Claimant), mother-in-law - Vimala and father-in-law - Venugopal were travelling in the car bearing registration No.PY-01 B 7887 owned by the 2nd Respondent (S.Ezhumalai) from Chennai to Pondicherry. When the car was nearing Kiliyanur, the Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-27 F 4799 owned by the 4th Respondent (Thiyagarajan) insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company proceeding in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. Due to the impact, Anis Gounalane, Claimant-G.V.Kalpana and his father-in-law Venugopal and mother-in-law Vimala sustained grievous injurious and father-in-law Venugopal died on the spot. Immediately after the accident Anis Gounalane, Claimant and mother-in-law Vimala were admitted in Pondicherry JIPMER hospital. Anis Gounalane succumbed to injuries on the same day at 6.30 A.M. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the Tipper lorry driver in Crime No.415 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) I.P.C. of Kiliyanur Police Station. At the time of accident, deceased Anis Gounalane was aged 50 years and he was employed in Law University at Paris (France) and was earning 1500 Euro, equivalent to Indian Rs.85,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry driver and that Claimant has lost the support of her husband, Claimant has filed Claim Petition (M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company filed counter stating that when the driver of the Tipper lorry drove the vehicle in a moderate speed by observing traffic rules, the car driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and hit against the lorry and caused the accident and that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore, the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to any compensation. It was averred that at the time of accident, the driver of the car was not having a valid driving licence. Appellant-Insurance Company also raised objection regarding the quantum of compensation that it is highly excessive.
4. In the accident, Claimant-G.V.Kalpana also sustained injuries and she had filed Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.459 of 2004 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, both the Claim Petitions (M.C.O.P.Nos.459 and 460 of 2004) were taken up together and common evidence was adduced. In the Tribunal, Claimant-G.V.Kalpana examined herself as P.W.1. Dr.M.Vijay Anand Thambiah, who issued Ex.P13-disability certificate to P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.
5. Upon consideration of oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-FIR, Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry driver and that Appellant-Insurance Company, insurer of the the Tipper lorry is liable to pay the compensation. Based on Ex.P6-certificate, Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at 950 Euro, equivalent to Indian Rs.64,600/- per month and the annual income at Rs.7,75,200/-. Adding Rs.2,00,000/- towards future prospects and also conventional damages, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.62,99,800/- to the Claimant.
6. Before the Tribunal even though Appellant-Insurance Company contested the manner of accident and negligence of the Tipper lorry driver, the appeal in C.M.A.No.819 of 2010 was preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company mainly challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to narrate the entire facts in details as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation.
7. Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that if the deceased Anis Gounalane received 950 Euro and sent money to the Claimant, there would have been proof for transferring the money to India by way of Foreign Exchange and no such evidence was adduced by the Claimant. It was submitted that on the date of accident (21.6.2003), one Euro value was only Rs.53.91, whereas Tribunal has taken Euro value with higher rate of Rs.68/- per Euro, which was the prevailing rate on 06.8.2008 and that the quantum of compensation awarded based on the said Exchange value is on the higher side. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased did not possess extraordinary qualification and was only working as Assistant and while so, Tribunal ought not to have calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.5,16,800/- per annum and Tribunal did not keep in view that deceased would have spent considerable amount towards personal expenses and prayed for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Drawing our attention to Ex.P6-certificate, Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh, learned counsel for Claimant submitted that the salary stated in Ex.P6-certificate is only the basic pay and Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the allowances which the deceased was getting. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased had better prospects for his further promotion and Tribunal ought to have made addition and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and prayed for enhancement.
9. Deceased Anis Gounalane was working at Law University, Paris (France) where he was a specilised Store Keeper and was incharge of informations of the public of computerized lending and he was also supervising the operations, equipments of books. In Ex.P6-certificate (30.03.2003) issued by Director of the Library of the University of Paris II Val-de-Marne, it is stated that Anis Gounalane was "conscious, responsible and organised" and that he was supervising the work with diligence.
10. Appellant-Insurance Company has not disputed the employment of Anis Gounalane in Paris (France) and also Ex.P6-certificate filed by the Claimant. They had only disputed the value of Euro adopted by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, learned counsel for Claimant has filed the document downloaded from the Internet showing that as on 06.8.2008, the value of one Euro was Rs.68.5355. Based on the said document, Tribunal has taken the value of one Euro at Rs.68/- and fixed the monthly income of the deceased in Indian value at Rs.64,600/- (950 Euro x Rs.68/-).
11. Raising objection as to the value of one Euro adopted by the Tribunal, in the appeal before this Court, Appellant-Insurance Company has produced the certificate (10.3.2010) issued by M/s.Venkat & Vasan, Chartered Accountants, Chennai to the effect that as on 23.6.2003 the value of one Euro was only Rs.53.91. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that Tribunal ought to have taken the value of one Euro at Rs.53.91 as on 21.6.2003 and erred in taking the value at the time of trial. Ofcourse, the value of one Euro at the time of accident (21.6.2003) was Rs.53.91. But the Tribunal chose to adopt the value of the Euro as on 6.8.2008 i.e. during the pendency of the Claim Petition. By perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company fairly conceded to the value of the Euro. It is also pertinent to note that even though the Claim Petition was filed on 05.1.2004, Claimant was yet to receive the compensation amount and Claimant had to wait to receive the fruits of the award passed by the Tribunal. Claim Petition of the year 2004 (M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004) was disposed of by the Tribunal only in 2009 and Claimant cannot be expected to bear the burden of inflation. Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the approach of the Tribunal in adopting the prevailing rate during the pendency of Claim Petition i.e. Rs.68/- per Euro in August 2008 is erroneous to reduce the same.
12. Learned counsel for Claimant contended that deceased was earning 1500 Euro per month, but the Tribunal had taken only 950 Euro and that Tribunal ought to have included the other allowances which the deceased was getting. In her evidence even though P.W.1 stated that her husband was getting about 1500 Euro per month, her evidence is not supported by any other documentary evidence. In Ex.P6-certificate, it is stated as 950 Euro. Thus the monthly income of the deceased is to be fixed only as 950 Euro. Based upon Ex.P6- certificate, Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at 950 Euro per month and had calculated the monthly income in Indian value at Rs.64,600/- per month (950 Euro x Rs.68/- = Rs.64,600/-). We do not find any reason to take a different view.
13. Placing reliance upon (2002) 6 SCC 281 : 2002 (4) Supreme 518 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others), the learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that when the deceased was employed in foreign country, the salary earned in the foreign country cannot be taken as it is and that balance must be struck to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne to suit the Indian condition.
14. In Patricia Jean Mahajan's case, [(2002) 6 SCC 281], a Foreign citizen succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor accident in India, the amount of dependency was calculated on the basis of deceased income in US dollars which is equivalent to Rs.16.12 crores. Holding that in the background of Indian conditions such amount is fabulous amount, though it cannot be so in the background of American conditions and that golden balance must be struck somewhere to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne, in (2002) 6 SCC 281 [United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"19. ...... Looking to the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. Therefore, where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz. The place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensation as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependant beneficiaries reside. ....."
15. As pointed out earlier, deceased was getting 950 Euro per month. By perusal of Ex.P6-certificate, it is seen that regarding his work, deceased was getting general appreciation. Having regard to the qualification of the deceased and the appreciation which he received, we are of the view that the deceased would have had prospects of getting more pay. Tribunal has not taken into account the avenues for further promotion. In the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the ratio of Patricia Jean Mahajan case, in our considered view, the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.64,600/- (950 Euro x Rs.68/-) is just and reasonable.
16. Insofar as deduction for personal expenses, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that when the person is employed in foreign countries, he has to live as per the Living Standard in the said country and therefore, Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses.
17. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken consistent view that one-third deduction to be made for "personal expenses". In (2008) 4 SCC 259 [Bilkish v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that deceased would have spent one-third towards personal use and the contribution two-third of his income to his family. Undisputedly, deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is ordinary rule in India. The deceased was working in Paris. While living in abroad in the country like France (Paris), the cost of living would have been more. Deceased Anis Gounalane would have spent considerable amount for travelling to her work place and work attire, warm clothes etc. Looking by the standards of living in France (Paris), one-third expenses for personal deduction would ofcourse be on the lower side. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we maintain one-third deduction made by the Tribunal towards "personal expenses".
18. Deceased Anis Gounalane was aged 50 years at the time of accident. As per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, the proper multiplier to be adopted is "11" which the Tribunal has rightly adopted. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.64,600/- and the annual income at Rs.7,75,200/- and deducting one-third for personal expenses i.e. Rs.2,58,400/-, Tribunal has calculated the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.5,16,800/-. Adopting multiplier "11", Tribunal calculated the "loss of dependency" at Rs.56,84,800/-, which in our considered view is just and reasonable.
19. Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards "future prospects". Considering the qualification of the deceased and he was a specialized Store Keeper and was incharge of the informations of the public of computerized lending and also the appreciations received from the Chief of the Establishment of Law University, Paris that he is "conscious, responsible and organised" and had avenues for future promotion, lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards "future prospects" is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-.
20. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for "loss of love and affection" and Rs.2,00,000/- for "loss of consortium". Though the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each awarded for "loss of love and affection" and "loss of consortium" is on the higher side, considering the fact that Claimant has lost her husband at the young age of 39 years and also the fact that her father died in the accident and she was left with her mother, who also sustained grievous injuries in the same accident, in our considered view, Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "loss of love and affection" and Rs.2,00,000/- awarded for "loss of consortium" are to be maintained. Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards "funeral expenses" and the same is maintained. Thus the total compensation of Rs.62,99,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.65,99,800/- as under:-
Loss of dependency ... Rs.56,84,800.00 (Rs.5,16,800 x 11) Future prospects ... Rs. 5,00,000.00 Loss of love and affection ... Rs. 2,00,000.00 Loss of consortium ... Rs. 2,00,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 15,000.00
------------------
Total ... Rs.65,99,800.00
------------------
Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the same is maintained.
21. In the result, the compensation of Rs.62,99,800/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004 (21.08.2009) on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore is enhanced to Rs.65,99,800/- and C.M.A.No.819 of 2010 preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.A.No.2043 of 2013 2013 preferred by the Claimant is partly allowed.
As per the order of the Court in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.819 of 2010 (30.03.2010), Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited, a consolidated sum of Rs.45,00,000/-. Out of which, as per the order of the Court in M.P.No.1 of 2012 (26.9.2012), Claimant was permitted to withdraw Rs.15,00,000/-.
Claimant is permitted to withdraw the the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- along with accrued interest lying in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore, immediately after the receipt of copy of this judgment.
Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit entire balance compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, Claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest.
Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.
(R.B.I., J.) (T.S.S.,J.)
25.06.2013
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
bbr
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
R.BANUMATHI, J
and
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
bbr
Common Judgment in
C.M.A.Nos.819/2010
and
2043 of 2013
25.06.2013