1. In a fatal road accident that took place on 29.07.2002, at about midnight, at Nandhigram Village at NH-7 Hyderabad-Chithoor road, one Munegowda died while travelling as a cleaner in lorry bearing No.TN-29-Y-4466 when its driver lost his control and dashed against it against another lorry bearing No.AHH-3654. The respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the victim and they have moved the Claims Tribunal along with their two unmarried daughters with a claim of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal had passed an award for Rs.5,00,800/- as compensation with interest at 9% p.a.
2. In this appeal, the insurance company in essence challenges the quantum of compensation awarded.
3 On perusal of the award in quantifying the compensation payable, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the victim at Rs.3,000/-, deducted 1/5 thereof towards his personal expenses and adopted 16 as the multiplier based on the age indicated in Ex.P-2 postmortem at 16 years and determined the value of loss of support he might have given his family at Rs.4,60,800/- and adding to it the other heads of non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs.5,00,800/-.
5. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal without any rational basis has fixed notional the income of the victim as Rs.3,000/- and also applied multiplier of 16 without ascertaining any proof of age of the victim.
6. In a case that since it is pending from 2005, the appellant has not taken any effective steps to serve notice of this appeal on the claimants. Therefore, this Court has taken up the appeal to test its merit on its own strength.
7. Keeping the other facts a constant, it is not disputed that the victim was aged between 18 to 20 years. For anyone in that age group as per the decision in Sarla Verma and other vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(2) TANMAC (1)] the multiplier applicable is 18 whereas the Tribunal has applied only 16 as multiplier. Secondly, even if the notional monthly income is fixed by the Tribunal is considered higher, it may have to be again stated that based on Sarla Verma dictum, another 50% must be added towards loss of future career prospects. If so viewed the appellant cannot have any grievance to the award passed. The learned counsel for the appellant also informed on instructions that the claimants have not preferred any appeal.
8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire award of compensation along with accrued interest, less the amount if any, already deposited in Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereupon the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.08.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssn N.SESHASAYEE, J., ssn To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.
C.M.A.No.4172 of 2005 02.08.2017