The legal representatives of the deceased Soundarajan has filed the claim petition for compensation, claiming a sum of Rs.20,30,000/-. The deceased, who was aged 20 years, was working as Sales Officer in M/s.Lakhsmi Agencies and a cement dealer in Puducherry, died in an accident on 28.09.2005.
2. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- as compensation, which is under challenge by the Insurance Company.
3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the multiplier of '16' adopted is not correct. It is also contended that out of the monthly income of Rs.4,000/-, (as the deceased died as bachelor), 50% ought to have been deducted towards the personal expenses and Rs.2,000/- should have been taken as monthly dependency and in that case, the award would suffer reduction.
4. Whether this contention can be accepted is the issue to be considered in this appeal.
5. Now coming back to be details of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has given a finding that with reference to the income, no documentary evidence has been adduced. The age of the deceased has been taken as 20, based upon the Post-mortem certificate. In the evidence, it was stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-. Deducting Rs.1,000/- towards the personal expenses, Rs.3,000/- has been taken as monthly dependency. The annual dependency has been taken at Rs.36,000/-.
5.1. The age of the father had been taken as 42 and the age of the mother had been taken as 35. Considering the age of the parents, multiplier of 16 has been adopted.
5.2. This is a case, where the age of the deceased was not taken into account in choosing the proper multiplier and the multiplier adopted should have been 18, (Considering the age of the deceased) but the Tribunal has taken the multiplier only as 16, (Considering the age of the parents). The loss of love and affection has been awarded at Rs.25,000/- each, totalling Rs.50,000/- on that head. Funeral expenses has been awarded at Rs.5,000/- and transport expenses has been awarded at Rs.1,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation has been arrived at.
6. It is relevant to point out that the future prospective increase in income ought to have been considered, especially when the deceased was aged only 20, but that has not been considered. Even if 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses and if proper multiplier of 18 is adopted, since the future prospective increase in income is not considered, the overall quantum of compensation would be found reasonable. Therefore the appeal has no merits and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
15.06.2017 kv/srk Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Pondicherry.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
Dr.S.VIMALA,J.
Kv/srk C.M.A.No.1796 of 2017 and CMP No. 9611 of 2017 15.06.2017