C.T. Selvam, J.@mdashThis appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2005 made in M.C.O.P. No. 812 of 2004, on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Principal District Judge) Erode.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:
The Insurance company is the Appellant herein. One Ramaswamy who was an additional Superintendent of Police meet his death on 04.04.2004
at about 11.30a.m. On the said day, he was driving his car when a lorry bearing registration No. TN-57-7389 insured with the Appellant
corporation dashed against the car resulting in the said Ramaswamy suffering multiple grievous injuries and dying on the spot. His legal heirs
comprising wife and two major children raised a claim petition informing of the deceased being aged 57 years at the time of his death of his
promotional opportunities and sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-.
3. Before the tribunal, the Petitioners examined four witnesses and marked the following exhibits:
Ex.A1 - Copy of FIR
Ex.A2 - Copy of Rough Sketch
Ex.A3 - Copy of Observation Mahazar
Ex.A4 - Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report
for the vehicle bearing registration
No.TN-30-D-9900
Ex.A5 - Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report
for the vehicle bearing registration
No.TN-57-7389
Ex.A6 - Copy of Post-mortem Certificate
Ex.A7 - Copy of charge sheet
Ex.A8 - Copy of Judgment in STC.No.1142 of 2004
Ex.A9 - Legalheirship certificate
Ex.A10 - Certificate issued by the Superintendent
of Police
Ex.A11 - Official Memorandum issued by the Office
of Superintendent of Police, Namakkal
Ex.A12 - Attested xerox copy of service book of the
deceased M.Ramasamy
Ex.A13 - Attested xerox copy of the letter issued by
Siva Compulink Ltd., Chennai to P.W.4
Ex.A14 - Attested xerox copy of Salary certificate
issued by Siva Compling Ltd. Chennai
Ex.A15 - Original of Ex.A14
Ex.A16 - Permission letter given by Siva Compulink Ltd.
Chennai to P.W.4
None were examined on behalf of the Respondent, nor were any exhibits marked. On consideration of material before it, the Tribunal found that
the rash and negligent driving of the lorry insured by the Appellant corporation has caused the accident and directed payment of compensation in a
sum of Rs. 12,03,568/-. Taking the salary of the deceased as exhibited from the records at Rs. 18,649/-the tribunal deducted 1/3rd thereof
towards his personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of ''8'' it arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs. 11,93,568/-. A further sum of Rs.
10,000/-was awarded towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal directed payment together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Apportionment amount
of compensation between the claimants also was directed. It negated the submissions of the claimants regarding the possibility of the deceased
earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/-per month post retirement which was 19 months away from the date of death. Though such was the earning of PW4,
a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, the tribunal found, there is nothing to show that the deceased had already applied to any private
company for employment or what his probable income would be post retirement.
4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3.
5. In appeal, neither the accident, negligence or the liability to pay compensation is disputed. The quantum of compensation is disputed by
informing that as the deceased had only 19 months of service left, the multiplier adopted ought not to have been ''8'' but ought to have been ''6'' as
such was the multiplier fixed in a case similar to the present one. In the decision in K. Rengasamy and Anr. v. Revathi and Ors. in 2008(5) MLJ
580, it has been held as follows:
The salary of the deceased as per Exhibit P.11 is found to be a sum of Rs. 24,400/-per month and it is the evidence of P.W.3 that the deceased is
entitled for further promotion and revision of pay structure accordingly and as such, considering the fact that his gross monthly income would have
shot up at least by 30% than what he was earning at the time of his death, the Court fixed an amount of Rs. 24,400/-and divided by 2, it would
come toRs.28,200/-and after deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income would be a sum of Rs. 18,800/-.
The deceased has got about 5 years and6 months more service as on the date of his death and as such, a service multiplier of ''6'' could be taken in
the matter and as such, the sum of Rs. 18,800/-, when multiplied by 6,it would come to Rs. 13,53,600/-and the same could be rounded off to Rs.
13,53,000/-. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs. 5,000/-by way of loss of consortium. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of
the accident and the age of the widow, we are inclined to enhance the loss of consortium to Rs. 13,000/-. Similarly, we are inclined to enhance the
amount awarded by way of love and affection from Rs. 5,000/-to 60,000/-, in as much as the second Respondent is the unmarried daughter of the
deceased and the third Respondent is also in his young age. We are also inclined to enhance the funeral expenses fromRs.5,000/-to Rs. 10,000/-.
Therefore, the compensation altogether would come to a sum of Rs. 14,36,000/-and we are of the view that the Respondents would be entitled to
get the said sum as compensation and the said amount appears to be the proper amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
6. The said case was one wherein the deceased had 5 years and 6 months of service left and the court had considered the possibility of the
deceased getting further promotion and increase of income at 30%. Having done so, the court fell it appropriate to apply the multiplier of ''6''. In
the present case, we merely will follow the decision of the apex court in the Sarala Varma''s case. Therein the apex court has held that in the case
of a person in permanent employment, the salary component could be enhanced taking into consideration the future prospects. However, the same
should not be done when the deceased has passed the age of ''50''.
7. We also find that given the age of the deceased in the present case viz., 57 years the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be ''9'' as
indicated in Sarala Varma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1(SC). Though no compensation has
been afforded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection on the reasoning that the children were major nor as any amount been awarded
towards loss of consortium which really is all the more necessary at an advanced age (the wife being aged 50 years as on the date of accident). As
no appeal or cross objection has been filed by the claimant/Respondent, we merely confirm the findings of the tribunal.
8. The appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs. It is informed that the entire amount has been deposited by the insurance company and 50% of the
amount had been withdrawn. The Respondents are at liberty to withdraw the balance amount on due application. No costs.