This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2010 dated 31.03.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Ramanathapuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and heard the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company and perused the records.
3. The claimants not satisfied with the award of Rs.9,72,000/- for the death of one Mahsook Hasan, aged about 22 years, a Diploma holder and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the accident occurred on 28.12.2009 and when he was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler, which was driving by the said Abdullah Asath, ran over a ditch and consequently the deceased was thrown out and sustained injuries and died.
4. The only question to be gone into is only with quantum of compensation as there is no appeal filed by the Insurance Company either with regard to quantum or on negligence aspect.
5. Mr.Velavadas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased was a diploma holder and also third year Engineering College student and therefore, atleast Rs.12,000/- should have been calculated as monthly income. But, the Tribunal took only Rs.9000/- as monthly income.
6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. U.Gopinath and 3 others in 2015(1) TN MAC 82 (DB), wherein for the death a second year Engineering student a sum of Rs.12,000/- was taken as monthly income and therefore, he seeks for enhancement of the monthly salary.
7. On the other hand, Mr.Vedasingh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that in the absence of any proof regarding monthly income, the Tribunal rightly fixed the monthly income at Rs.9,000/- and therefore, no enhancement is needed.
8. It is proved before the Tribunal through Ex.P.12 Diploma in Information Technology that the deceased is a Diploma holder. Ex.P.6 is Bonafide Certificate issued by Aalim Muhammed Salegh College of Engineering, which would prove that the deceased was a third year B.E student. Ex.P.8 and Ex. P.11 are the Sports Certificates obtained by the deceased. The Tribunal, considering his position as a student, determined the monthly income at Rs.9,000/-.
8. In the judgment of the Division Bench relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. U.Gopinath and 3 others in 2015(1) TN MAC 82 (DB), the deceased was a first year Engineering student and for his death, the Division Bench took Rs.12,000/- as monthly income by computing the basic salary of Engineering graduate in the Central Government at Rs.15,600/-. The relevant portion of paragraph No. 5 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
5.At this juncture, it has to be taken note of that in the Central Government, the basic salary of a Engineering Graduate, as per the revised pay sale is Rs.15,600/- per month, with grade pay Rs.5,000 to 6,000/- per month. ... Therefore, considering the normal scales fixed to the technical persons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of a technical person, can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month?.
9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to follow the said decision and determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-.
10. The Tribunal rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Further, the Tribunal adopted multiplier '16' as the deceased aged about 22 years. As per the judgment of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), the proper multiplier is ''18''. Therefore, the loss of income would be Rs.12,000 ? 50% = 6000 X 12 X 18 = Rs.12,96,000/-
11. The Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the parents for the loss of love and affection. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has awarded towards love and affection only to parents and did not award any amount to the brothers and sister namely, the appellants 3 to 5. As rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Division Bench of this Court in 2016(1) TANMAC page No.453 (In ICICI Vs.Kaliyamoorthy). Paragraph No.15 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
?15.Exclusion of a married daughter/sister/ brother from the Claim Petition, altogether would be opposed to the object of the Act and it would be amounting to adding words to the legislation, which the Court is not supposed to do. As held by the Apex Court, even if there is Casus Omissus, it is not for the Court to add words to the legislation.The construction and interpretation of the words, ?Legal Representatives? in
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the context and nature of legislation, being beneficial, should be interpreted in such a way not to take away their rights. Merely because a married daughter/sister is living with her husband, in a separate house, that by itself would not disentitle her from claiming Compensation,as a Legal Representative, to represent, the estate of the deceased?
12. The Division Bench of this Court held that brothers and sisters would also come under the category of legal representatives. This Court is of the view that the brothers and sister born with the deceased have lost love and affection of the deceased. Therefore, they are also be awarded for love and affection. Therefore, a sum of Rs.30,000/- each is awarded.
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3000/- for transportation Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Since the amounts are low, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded for transportation and for funeral expenses.
14. 7.5% interest ordered by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,06,000/-
15. Accordingly, the appellants 1 to 5/claimants are entitled to get the following compensation:
Sl.
No.
Heads Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Amount reduced/ enhanced by this Court (Rs.) Total (Rs.)
1. Loss of Income 8,64,000.00 (+) 4,32,000.00 12,96,000.00
2. Loss of Love and Affection for petitioners 1 and 2 Rs.50,000/- each 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00
3. Loss of love and affection for the petitioners 3 to 5 each Rs.30,000/- Nil (+) 30,000.00 90,000.00
4.
The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed.
13. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed deposit the entire amount along with interest and costs within a period of six weeks. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the same to the Personal Savings Account Number of the claimants through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting their Account Details, within a period of two weeks thereafter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
To, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Additional District Judge), Ramanathapuram.
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
The matter is listed today ?for being mentioned? through ?Video- Conferencing? at the instance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the appellants 3 to 5 were awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards ?loss of love and affection?, in the order copy issued by the registry, it has been wrongly stated as Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-. However, a perusal of the original order dated 12.01.2017 would reveal that this Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order, by relying on the judgment reported in 2016 (1) TNMAC 453 (ICICI v. Kaliyamoorthy) had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the appellants 3 to 5.
3.It is further submitted by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties that in the Tabular Column in paragraph 15 of the order, in Sl.No.3, it has been mentioned that the petitioners 3 to 5 were awarded Rs.10,000/- each and therefore, only a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards ?loss of love and affection?. However, a perusal of the original order dated 12.01.2017 would reveal that this Court in the Tabular Column in paragraph 15 of the order, in Sl.No.3, had awarded Rs.30,000/- each to the petitioners 3 to 5, totaling a sum of Rs.90,000/-.
4.Thus, it seems that some error has crept in while preparing the order copy. Hence, the registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy in consonance with the original order dictated and signed by this Court. Further, since the appellants and the respondents had sought for clarification and the clarification is made only today, the second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount along with interest and costs within a period of six weeks from today. .