This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and decree made in M.A.C.O.P.No.211 of 2008, dated 09.04.2011, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
It is a case of fatal accident took place on 11.06.2008 at about 11.30 a.m. at Ilaiyarasanenthal ? Kovilpatti road. While the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-67- K-0324, a TATA 407 van bearing registration No.TN-28-Y-6007, belonged to the first respondent and which was insured with the second respondent, came in a opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the said impact, the rider of the two wheeler and the deceased were thrown away and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, where he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing commission business in selling waste plastic objects and waste papers. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.A.C.O.P.No.211 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent / Insurance Company before the Tribunal, it denied the age and income of the deceased and it also denied the manner in which the accident had occurred.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellants/Claimants examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked ten documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel for the learned Counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle which was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company and directed the second/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,52,000/-, as compensation to the claimants.
6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that when the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. by doing commission business in selling waste plastic objects and waste papers, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. He further contended that while adopting multiplier for arriving loss of income, the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier by taking into account the age of the claimant, instead of taking the age of the deceased. He also submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are also very meagre. Hence, the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants needs interference of this Court to the award passed by the Tribunal and seeks enhancement of compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that based on the available oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and arrived at correct compensation under various heads and hence, it does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income as Rs.4,500/- as monthly income of the deceased. Further, while adopting the multiplier method, the tribunal had wrongly taken the age of the claimants/parents instead of the age of the deceased. This is apparent error on the face of the record. In this connection, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC), wherein, for arriving at loss of income, the multiplier has to be adopted by taking into account the age of the deceased. If that being so, the correct multiplier would be ?18?. According to the various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, even without any proof of income, the Court can take a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. If that being so, since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, a sum of Rs.3000/- has to be taken as monthly income of the deceased and accordingly, the loss of income has to be arrived at Rs.3000/- x12X18=Rs.6,48,000-. Insofar as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is very meagre. Hence, this Court has enhanced the same to Rs.1,00,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to a sum of Rs.7,68,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Only), under the following heads:-
11. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the claimant itself has restricted his claim only to Rs.7,00,000/- before the Tribunal. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.
12. It is a pathetic case and a lesson to this Court as to how the Act has to be made applicable to a common man. In the case on hand, the deceased is the only son of the claimants. Their untold sufferings and mental agony undergoing by them at the time of accident and remaining period of their life could not be compensated in terms of the money granted by this Court. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to enhance the compensation though the claimant has restricted their claim to a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,52,000/- to Rs.7,68,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Only) along with interests and costs at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already deposited before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. The appellants/claimants are directed to remit the enhance Court fee before the Court below for enforcement of the enhanced award granted by this Court. No Costs.
To,
1. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.