CMA/4070/2008 of THE BRANCH MANGER Vs INDHIRANI on 23 December 2008

1. Indhirani2. Chandraleka3. Manoj (Minor)4. Mathumitha(Minor)5. Baratha (Minor)(Minors 3 to 5 rep. By their mother guardian 2[nd] respondent Chanraleka)6. S.Sivasubramanian7. S.Arul8. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company, Arcotwoodlands Complex, Cuddalore .. Respondents/Petitioners/ 1,3 & 4th Respondent. . .

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against theaward and decree dated 20.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P No.1126 of 2005 onthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal DistrictJudge) Cuddalore.

. . .

The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging theaward dated 20.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P No.1126 of 2005 on the file ofthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge)Cuddalore.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in thiscase happened on 09.04.2005. The deceased Mani @ Manivelan, aged 35years, a Carpenter, was travelling in an autorickshaw bearingregistration No.TN-31-E-4644 and insured with the 8th respondentfrom Thambipettai to Nellikuppam. When the said autorickshaw wasproceeding along Cuddalore to Chidambaram Main road, a private busbelonging to the 6th respondent and insured with the appellant camefrom the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash andnegligent manner, hit the autorickshaw. In that accident, the saidMani suffered grievous injuries and died. The mother aged 40 years,wife aged 24 years, two minor sons, aged,5,and 3 years and one minordaughter aged 4 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/-per month working as a Carpenter.

3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1, one Dakshinamurthy, employer of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.2 and one Subash, eye witness was examined as P.W.3.Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Ex.P.1 is the copy of theFirst Information Report. Ex.P.2 copy of the Motor VehicleInspector's inspection report. Ex.P.3 is the Post mortem Certificate.Ex.P.4 is the copy of the Insurance Policy of the offending bus.Ex.P.5 is the Driving Licence of the driver of the offending bus.Ex.P.6 is the copy of R.C.Book of the bus.Ex.P.7 is the Recordssheets of the deceased. Ex.P.8 is the Member card of the deceasedissued by the President of Tamil Nadu Construction Workers CentralUnion,Chennai. Ex.P.9 is the hospital report. Ex.P.10 is the Membercard of Dakshinamoorthy, employer of the deceased. Ex.P.11 is thecopy of the driving licence of P.W.3, eye witness. No oral ordocumentary evidence was let on the side of the appellant/2ndrespondent before the Tribunal.

4. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driverof the offending bus who is responsible for the accident and causedthe death and the liability fixed on the appellant- insuranceCompany, to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed inthis appeal and hence, the same is confirmed.

5. In the Appeal, the only contention raised by thelearned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,250/- permonth and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of thedeceased, by adopting 16 multiplier, granted a sum of Rs.4,16,000/-(i.e.Rs.3,250 X 12=Rs.39,000/- - 13,000/- = Rs.26,000/- X 16 =Rs.4,16,000/-) towards pecuniary loss. The Tribunal also grantedcompensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal grantedthe following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% :

6. In appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal onthe death of 33 years old Carpenter is on the higher side.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand,stated that meagre amount has been granted towards loss of love andaffection and loss of consortium and justified the Award.

8. On going through the award, this Court is not inclinedto interfere with the compensation granted by the Tribunal for thefollowing reasons:

i. The deceased 33 years old, Carpenter was supporting hisfamily consisting of a wife, three minor children and mother.The employer was examined as P.W.2 to state about the incomeof the deceased claimed at Rs.4,500/- per month. Since theaccident in his case happened in the year 2005, consideringthe minimum wages and the living wages of the persons likethat of the deceased, the Tribunal should have fixed theincome atleast at Rs.4,500/- as claimed by the claimants. Onthe contrary, the said income of the deceased was taken asRs.3,250/- by the Tribunal. Since the income of the deceasedis fixed at Rs.3,250/- per month only, the higher multiplierof 16 will compensate for the lesser income taken in thiscase.

ii. The amounts granted towards loss of consortium and lossof love and affection are also marginally lower as there arethree minor children and a mother. They have to be properlycompensated for the loss of love and affection, on the deathof the deceased and they are entitled to a further sum ofRs.10,000/-.

iii. Considering all these, the quantum of compensationgranted by the Tribunal is justified as also the interest at7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2005 and the awardwas passed in the year 2007.

9. Finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time todeposit the entire award amount and is allowed. On such deposit, theclaimants are entitled to withdraw the same except the minors as perthe order of the Tribunal.

Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarPALToThe Principal District Judge,The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Cuddalore. 1 cc To Mr.D.Bhaskaran, Advocate, SR.72400 CMA No. 4070 of 2008KK(CO)SRA(10/02/2009)