This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore) in a fatal accident case involved in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2003.
2. On 05.10.2002, at about 3 p.m., one Stanislas was driving his auto bearing No.T.M.R.4532 along cuddalore-Viruthachalam highway. Due to rash and negligent driving, a bus belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the appellant collided with the auto which led to the death of its driver Stanislas. His heirs approached the Tribunal with a claim of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. On the aspect of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has reckoned the income of the victim at Rs.4,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 16 that corresponds to the age of the victim which at the relevant time was 39 years, and arrived at a compensation of Rs.5,12,000/- towards loss of dependency. Adding the other heads of non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal determined the total compensation amount at Rs.6,95,790/- and directed the respondents before it to pay with interest at 9% per annum.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident had taken place in 2002 and the cost of living and the standard of life prevailed at that point of time is not such as to warrant fixing the monthly income of the victim at Rs.4,000/-. Even on other non-pecuniary heads such as loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, the compensation awarded is on the higher side and hence, he required this Court to interfere with the award to make it as realistic as possible.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent however contended that the march of law in the field of assessing the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act has seen new heights more particularly after the Sarla Verma case. Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the claimants urged that in the eventuality of this court opting to interfere with the award, the Sarla Verma formula need to be applied.
6. There is merit in the submissions of both the learned counsels. If Sarla Verma dictum is to be followed then only 1/4th needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the victim and another 50% also required to be added towards loss of future prospects of increasing income. This to me would adequately balance the alleged higher income which the Tribunal might have fixed notional for determining the compensation amount. The other non-pecuniary damages, most importantly that awarded for loss of consortium at Rs.5,000/-, and loss of love and affection to the children and parents of the victim at Rs.5,000/- each, cannot be termed excessive at any rate.
7. Taking an over all view of the matter, I find that even though there are some elements available on record to interfere yet the need to apply the principles declared in Sarla Verma case brings about a balance between the parties hereto visa-viz the compensation award.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company has deposited entire amount and the claimants too have been permitted to withdraw 50% thereon. The claimants would now be entitled to withdraw the remaining 50% forthwith. No costs.
01.08.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssn To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore.
N.SESHASAYEE, J., ssn C.M.A.No.1993 of 2005 01.08.2017