11.Mrs.Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that as per the letter issued by the employer of the deceased, the deceased was born on 21.03.1951 and he was aged about 55 years and 4 months on the date of accident and as such, he is falling under the age group of 51 to 55 years. If that is so, the correct multiplier to be adopted, while assessing the compensation under the head loss of income is '11'. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that by applying the multiplier '11', the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income has to be recalculated and the total compensation has to be enhanced.
12.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed before us.
13.There is no dispute with regard to the date, time and place of the accident. What was disputed by the respective insurance companies is with regard to the fixation of negligence at 50% each on the drivers of the respective vehicles and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, while determining the compensation under the head loss of income.
14.It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. To fortify the said contention, he relied on Ex.R1-Rough sketch and the evidence of R.W.1-Investigating Officer of their company. Placing reliance on the very same Ex.R1 rough sketch and the evidence of R.W.2 Investigating Officer of National Insurance Co., the learned counsel for M/s.National Insurance Co. contended that the driver of the car is not at all responsible for the accident and it was the lorry, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car and caused the accident. However, this Court is of the view that Ex.R1- Rough sketch was not prepared by the police authorities and it was prepared by the Investigating officer of M/s.United India Insurance Company. Similarly, R.W.1 and R.W.2, who are the Investigating Officers of the respective Insurance companies, are not belonging to the Police Department. Therefore, in the absence of any independent and concrete evidence to show that the driver of the lorry or the driver of the car alone was responsible for the accident, the contention raised by the respective insurance companies cannot be accepted by this Court. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident is one of head-on-collision due to the rash and negligent act of the drivers of both the vehicles and fixing the negligence at 50% each on both the drivers of the vehicles, is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the direction given by the Tribunal to the respective insurance companies to pay the compensation equally to the claimants, is hereby sustained.
15.So far as the quantum of compensation awarded, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years, based on Ex.P3 post mortem certificate and applied the multiplier '13'. As per the evidence of P.W.4, Deputy Chief Manager, NLC, Neyveli, who was examined to prove the occupation and income of the deceased and Ex.P9 -Identity Card and Ex.P10 -Salary certificate of the deceased for the month of December 2011, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.36,470/- per month. After deducting 10% of the salary towards Income Tax and 1/4th amount towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs.2,95,407/-, which is not in dispute by the appellant insurance companies. Thereafter, applying the multiplier '13', the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.38,40,291/- under the head loss of income. Though the learned counsel for M/s.United India Insurance Co. Limited placing reliance on the letter issued by the Employer of the deceased, seriously disputed the multiplier '13' adopted by the Tribunal, while awarding the compensation under this count, he ultimately agreed to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants that the deceased was aged about 55 years and four months and he is falling in the age group of 51 to 55 years and the correct multiplier to be adopted is '11', in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another). In view of the same, we are inclined to apply the multiplier '11' for the purpose of recomputing the compensation under the head loss of income. Accordingly, the loss of income works to Rs.32,49,477/- (Rs.2,95,407/- x 11) and the same is hereby awarded to the claimants.
16.As regards the compensation awarded towards conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- each towards funeral expenses and ambulance charges, which, in our view, are definitely on the lower side. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim, and the court's duty is to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, irrespective of claim made. In the light of the same, we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads stated supra. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Similarly, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to the first claimant is hereby enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Likewise, a sum of Rs.2,500/- each towards funeral expenses and ambulance charges is hereby enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.36,470/- awarded towards future prospects by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. Further, there is no modification with regard to the interest at 6% per annum, awarded by the Tribunal.
17.In view of the above, the compensation of Rs.39,31,761/- awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
Loss of income - Rs.32,49,477/-
Future prospects - Rs. 36,470/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.25,000/- each) Loss of consortium to the first claimant - Rs. 50,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 20,000/- Ambulance charges - Rs. 5,000/- ..................... Total - Rs.34,24,477/- .....................
Out of the above said award amount, the first claimant/wife is entitled to Rs.9,24,477/-; the claimants 2 and 3 being the daughters of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.9,00,000/- each; and the fourth claimant/mother is entitled to Rs.7,00,000/- and they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on due application. The appellant insurance companies in CMA.Nos.890/2013 and 2109 of 2017 are permitted to withdraw their respective excess amount along with the proportionate interest, lying in the deposit.
18.In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(R.P.S., J.) (P.V., J.) 14.09.2017 rk Index:Yes/No To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
R.SUBBIAH, J.
and P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rk C.M.A.Nos.890 of 2013 and 2109 of 2017 14.09.2017