S. Vimala, J.@mdashThe Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the liability to pay the compensation. One V. Srinivasan, aged 25 years, employed as Junior Assistant at Government Primary Health Center, earning a sum of Rs. 6,129/- per month, died in an accident that took place on 25.05.2003. According to the case of the claimant, the deceased was travelling as a pillon rider in Yamaha Motor cycle, bearing Registration No. TN29-A-1138 and at that time, the lorry, bearing Registration No. TN28-W-8686 came behind the motor cycle and dashed against it, causing instant death of Srinivasan. The complaint has been lodged by one Sivakumar, who was driving the two wheeler, at the time of accident. A case was registered by Dharmapuri Police in Crime No. 711 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.
2. Finally, the police, after investigation, laid the final report against the driver of the lorry and the lorry driver admitted rash and negligent driving and paid fine of Rs. 3,500/- and suffered imprisonment of one week, as evidenced by Ex. A-5.
3. When the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, the first respondent, owner of the vehicle therein, remained ex parte. It is only the Insurance Company, which contested the claim petition. The second respondent filed a counter alleging non-involvement of the vehicle, i.e., the lorry bearing Registration No. TN28-W-8686. The Insurance Company has also sought for reinvestigation in respect of the alleged accident and the copy of the complaint addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CB CID, dated 24.11.2005 has been marked as Ex. R-2.
4. On behalf of the claimant, Exs. A-1 to A-7 have been marked and four witnesses have been examined. On the side of the respondents, Exs. R-1 to R-3 have been marked and one Manivel has been examined as R.W. 1.
5. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that it is only the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, i.e., the lorry, which got involved in the accident and therefore, the second respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. On these findings, quantification of compensation was done, awarding Rs. 6,54,416/- and the breakup details are as follows.
6.1. The monthly salary has been taken at Rs. 6,129/-, deducting Rs. 2,043/- towards the personal expenses, dependency has been assessed at Rs. 4,086/-. The loss of annual income calculated at Rs. 49,032/- (Rs. 4,086 x 12).
The age of the parents were taken into account as 45, 50, respectively, and taking the average as ''49'' and adopting the multiplier of ''13'', quantification has been done in respect of loss of dependency (Rs. 49,032 x 13 = Rs. 6,37,416/-). Awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, total compensation has been quantified at Rs. 6,54,416/-.
6. Challenging the finding on negligence, disputing the finding on involvement of the vehicle as well as quantum, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, i.e., first respondent in Cross Appeal, contended that when the Insurance Company has preferred complaint seeking reinvestigation, as proved under Ex. R-2, the Tribunal ought not to have given a finding that it is only the lorry, which was involved in the accident.
7.1. Learned counsel for the first respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as Appellant in Cross Appeal pointed out that except preferring the complaint under Ex. R-2, no concrete steps have been taken by the insurance Company, either by filing a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate or by seeking direction from the High Court, seeking reinvestigation by the concerned authorities, nothing has been done from the year 2005 and therefore, mere marking of the complaint alone will not exonerate the owner from the liability, to pay compensation to the claimant.
7.2. Admittedly, no steps have been taken, as contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent. However, it is for the Court to find out whether the available materials prove the involvement of the vehicle.
7.3. In order to find out whether there had been sufficient materials for the Tribunal to implicate the lorry, it is relevant to consider the following aspects:-
(a) complaint has been given by one of the injured, who was driving the two wheeler at the time of accident. According to the First Information Report preferred by him, at the time when the lorry hit against the two wheeler, he fell down and during that impact, he failed to note down the lorry number and therefore, the First Information Report did not contain the lorry number.
(b) Just because, the First Information Report is lacking in material particulars, i.e., the number of the lorry, whether it could be concluded that the lorry has been implanted at a later point of time without any basis.
7.4. The informant has rightly mentioned that just because of the accident he suffered, he was not in a position to look into the lorry number and therefore, he did not furnish the lorry number in the complaint. But, the fact that lorry number could not be noted has been investigated and the police has filed the charge sheet against the lorry driver. It goes without saying that the admission is the best form of evidence and the lorry driver has admitted that it was only, he who was driving the lorry at the time of accident, i.e., TN28-W-8686 and that it was he, who was rash and negligent. Therefore, when there is an admission by the lorry driver himself that it was only the lorry, which got involved in the accident and that it was only he, who was responsible for the accident, there is no ground for the Tribunal to reject such evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in concluding that the vehicle belonging to the first respondent alone was involved in the accident and therefore, that finding does not require any interference.
8. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there are serious disputes with regard to the fact as to whether the age of the deceased or age of the claimant should be the basic factor to fix the multiplier. According to the appellant/Insurance Company, it is only the age of the claimant, that is the parents, which should be the criteria to fix the multiplier. But, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent/Cross Objector, it is only the age of the deceased, which should be taken into account, as per the decision reported in
40.....
(iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma, for determination of compensation in cases of death.
(v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma.
(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above.....
8.1. One more decision relied upon is the one reported in
17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation.
18. In the case of
8.2. As per these decisions, the selection of multiplier should be based upon the age of the deceased and not upon the age of the dependants. In that view of the matter, the age of the deceased was ''21'' at the time of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier to be adopted is ''18''.
9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant is that the Tribunal did not take into account, the future prospective increase in income, especially when the deceased was the Government servant, having been employed in a permanent job. His salary certificate has already been filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, safely 50% of the increase can be considered for fixing the future prospective increase in income. The memo of calculation has been filed by the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant and it has been circulated to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also.
9.1. Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses has also been taken into account in the calculation. Adopting the multiplier of ''17'' the calculation has been made. The total compensation, after 50% of the deduction made, the loss of dependency is estimated at Rs. 9,37,737/-. Awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, towards loss of love and affection, (totalling Rs. 20,000/-) and awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the Transport expenses, the total amount of compensation payable is Rs. 9,62,737/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 6,54,416/-. Therefore, the balance payable by the Insurance Company is Rs. 3,08,321/-, along with interest at 7.5% per annum.
10. It is represented that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the balance of Rs. 3,08,321/- is payable by the Insurance Company, with interest at 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 judgment. On such deposit, the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, is dismissed and the Cross Objection Appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
