G. Chockalingam, J.@mdashBeing dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 3827 of 2010 due to the death of K.Velayudham in a road accident on 26.08.2010, the first claimant/wife of the deceased, claimants 2, 4 and 6/sons of the deceased and claimants 3 and 5/daughters of the deceased have filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 26.08.2010 at about 22.30 hours, while the deceased viz., K.Velayudham was standing near Rajiv Gandhi Salai, opposite to Ookiyam Pettai, Vinayaka Avenue to cross the road from West to East direction, a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-09-BE-0720, belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner along Rajiv Gandhi Salai from South to North direction and dashed against the K.Velayudham and in the accident, he sustained severe head injuries and died in the hospital on 27.08.2010 during the course of treatment. The first claimant is the wife of the deceased; 2nd, 4th and 6th claimants are his sons; 3rd and 5th claimants are his daughters. Alleging that the driver of the motorcycle is responsible for the accident, the claimants have filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The first respondent, who is the driver of the motorcycle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
4. Resisting the claim petition and also raising objection as to the avocation, age and income of the deceased, the second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter stating that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and the claim made by the claimants is very excessive and hence, the second respondent/Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr. Kuppan was examined as P.W.2 and as many as Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2.
6. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and that the first respondent herein, being the owner and the second respondent herein, being the insurer of the said vehicle, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,58,900/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation. Break-up details of the award are as under:
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased not less than Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum, based on the relevant documents produced on the side of the appellants. Further, the deduction of 1/4th amount made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased is not correct. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount granted towards ''loss of consortium to the first claimant'' and ''loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 6'' are very meagre. Further, the Tribunal ought to have allowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the claim of the claimants towards loss of expectation of life and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal has fixed the interest at the rate of 7.5%, which is not correct. It is further contended that the value of the appeal is restricted to Rs. 25,00,000/- and hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation of Rs. 6,58,900/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 31,58,900/-. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel prayed that the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal has to be enhanced in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, has correctly awarded compensation, since the lands stood in the name of the wife of the deceased. Further, all the vehicles, such as JCB, Tractor and Harvest machine are continuously maintained by the sons of the deceased. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance company further contended that considering the age of the deceased and the age of the wife of the deceased, the Tribunal has correctly awarded just and reasonable compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. Hence, the award of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. After hearing elaborate arguments made on either side, the followings points arise for consideration in this appeal:-
1. Whether the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation or not?; and
2. What other reliefs that the claimants are entitled to?
11. In this case, P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence had deposed that her husband met with an accident on 26.08.2010, treated at Global Hospital and in spite of best treatment, he died on 27.08.2010. Copy of Accident Register was marked as Ex.P.1. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 53 years. She further deposed that her husband was owning 4 tractors, two harvesting machines, JCB and Earth Moving equipments and Xerox copy of R.C. Book of the vehicles were marked as Ex.P.6(S). For the death of the K.Velayudham, the appellants/claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs. 36,872/- towards court fee. But the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 6,58,900/-. As against which, the second respondent/Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal. The appellants/claimants have filed an appeal and restricted their claim to the value of Rs. 25,00,000/-. So the claimants have claimed a total compensation of Rs. 31,58,900/-.
12. On the side of the claimants, they have produced a copy of patta, which was marked as Ex.P.5. On a perusal of Ex.P.5-Patta, it is seen that the deceased Velayudham and his wife holding lands to an extent of 1 hectare and 98 acres , 21.50 acres nancha lands and 37.0 acres and 55.0 acres of punja lands and also the deceased Velayudham holding lands of 8.5 acres and 85.0 acres of nancha lands. P.W.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that after the death of her husband, agricultural lands are looking after by her sons Dilliram, Neelamegam and Kothandapani and the loans were discharged, after the death of her husband, out of the income derived from the agricultural lands. According to the claimants, the main income of the deceased was from the said lands. According to the first claimant, there is no income loss from the lands.
13. Further, on verification of the documents, particularly Ex.P6(S) only two vehicles are owned by the deceased and the said vehicles were purchased by availing loan from the Sundaram Finance and the deceased and the 2nd petitioner were having joint account in the Indian Bank. Even after the demise of Velayutham, his sons continuing the same business and there is no income loss in the above headings. Hence, the sons of the deceased are looking after the other business, even after the death of Velayutham. So, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- per annum is not at all acceptable.
14. Further, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, which is very meagre. The deceased was doing agricultural work and also doing other business. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that considering the age and business of the deceased, it would be appropriate to fix a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as the monthly income of the deceased.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in
26. In
27. In paragraph 42 (pg.140) of the Report, this Court in
42. 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."
28 to 32......
33. We have already noticed the table prepared in
16. In
30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in
50. In addition, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000 under the head of "loss of estate" and Rs. 5000 towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 8,84,870. After deducting Rs. 7,19,624 awarded by the High Court, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,65,246.
17. According to the above principles of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, for the age group 51 to 55, the correct multiplier to be adopted is ''11''. But, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of ''9''. Hence, we are of the considered view that the correct multiplier to be adopted in this case is only ''11'' and monthly income of the deceased is fixed as Rs. 10,000/- and as per the above principles of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, after deducting 1/5th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, loss of contribution to the family is calculated at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Total loss of dependency is calculated at (Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 11 = Rs. 10,56,000/-) Rs. 10,56,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which are on the lower side. Hence, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the children of the deceased. Since the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads are reasonable one, it does not require any modification.
18. Thus, in the above said circumstances, the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows:-
19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 3827 of 2010 is enhanced to Rs. 12,06,000/-. The enhanced compensation is payable with interest at 7.5% per annum. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as per the ratio ordered by the Tribunal. No costs in this appeal.
20. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same along with the accrued interest.
