C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe above appeal has been filed by the Appellant/New India Assurance Co. Ltd., against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 563 of 2005, dated 29.09.2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ginjee.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 13.01.2005, at about 03.20 a.m., when the Petitioners and their daughter, deceased Annai Theresa were standing in the Kadaladikulam bus stop, the lorry bearing Registration No. PY-01-K-4343 come from Thiruvannamalai towards Ginjee and driven by its driver at a high speed, dashed against the (deceased) Annai Theresa. Due to this accident, the (deceased) Annai Theresa sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the Petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Respondents who are the owner and insurer of the said lorry.
3. The second Respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim stating that the Petitioners should prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased, manner of accident, nature of injuries through documentary evidence. It was also stated that the first Respondent vehicle was not insured with them during the relevant period and that the driver of the vehicle did not possess an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was also stated that the claim was excessive.
4. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely;
(i) Did the accident occur due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. PY-01-K-4343?
(ii) Are the Petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
5. On the Petitioners side, the first Petitioner was examined as PW1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 viz., FIR, Insurance policy of lorry involved in accident, driving license of driver of lorry, R.C. Book of lorry, post-mortem report of deceased, School certificate issued to (deceased) Annai Theresa and Ration card of Petitioners. On the Respondents side, no witness, no documents.
6. PW1 adduced evidence that was in consonance with the version of accident as mentioned in the claim. PW1 further adduced evidence that he had given a complaint at Nallan Pillaipetran Police Station and in support of this had marked Ex.P1, First Information Report. Pursuant to the F.I.R., a criminal case had also been charged against the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. PY-01-K4343. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of PW1, as well as the averments made in F.I.R., held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first Respondent''s lorry.
7. As no documentary evidence had been furnished on the part of the Petitioners to prove that the (deceased) Annai Theresa was earning a sum of Rs. 200/- per day through tailoring work, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the (deceased) could be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Deducting 1/4th of this for personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of "16" as was relevant to the age of the deceased as 16 (as per Ex.P5 and P6).
8. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/-(Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 16). The Tribunal further awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of love and affection of (deceased). In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,06,000/- as compensation and directed the second Respondent to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of compensation, within 60 days from the date of this order.
9. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the second Respondent, New India Assurance Company Limited, Thiruvannamalai has filed the present appeal to set-aside the award.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of a 16 year old student at Rs. 4,000/- per month and making a deduction of 1/4th only for the purpose of computing compensation. It was pointed out that the Tribunal ought to have adopted only the notional income as per judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in 2005 ACJ 99 and this Hon''ble Court in 2007 (2) TNMAC 190. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiplier of 16, contrary to the above judgments. It was also pointed out that the award was excessive.
11. The learned Counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased had discontinued her studies and learnt tailoring work practically and started to do tailoring work independently and was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The entire amount was contributed to her parents, since she was living under the care of her parents. But, the learned Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- after deducting personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4th of her income and fixed the contribution as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Actually, the deceased''s age was 17 years . She was the only daughter to the claimants. The deceased extended her support to her parents by way of contributing her income. The Tribunal had not considered award under the head of ''transport''.
12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned Counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- without any documentary evidence and hence this is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court fixes the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and assessed the compensation as follows:
| For loss of income (Rs. 3,000 x 1/3 x 2 x 12 x 16) | .. | Rs. 3,84,000/- |
| For love and affection | .. | Rs. 40,000/- |
| For funeral expenses | .. | Rs. 10,000/- |
| For loss of estate | .. | Rs. 16,000/- |
In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation, which is fair and justifiable. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs. 6,06,000/- to Rs. 4,50,000/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- together with proportionate interest and costs, as per this Court''s conditional order dated 26.02.2008. Now, this Court directs, as per the above findings of this Court, to deposit the balance compensation amount of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their modified compensation amount as fixed by this Court and as apportioned by the Tribunal''s finding lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 563 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ginjee, after filing a Memo along with this order.
13. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 563 of 2005 dated 29.09.2006 on the file of Subordinate Court, Ginjee is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
