(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) In the accident, which occurred, on 1/12/2013, a 43 year old, Assistant Professor in H.H.Rajah's College (Autonomous), Pudukottai, died. Legal representatives - wife, two minor daughters, aged 19 and 8 years respectively, and mother aged about 65 years, filed M.C.O.P.No.876 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs.2,25,00,000/-, under various heads.
2. Before the Tribunal, legal representatives have filed Ex.P.16 salary certificate and Ex.P.7 salary slip, for the month of November 2013, to prove that at the time of accident, the deceased was an Assistant Professor in H.H.Rajah's College (Autonomous), Pudukottai, and earned Rs.54,681/- p.m. That apart, P.W.3 Sevugan, Junior Assistant has been examined, to support avocation and income.
3. Taking note of the deductions mentioned in Ex.P.7 salary slip, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income, as Rs.45,600/-. Following the decision of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another {2009 (5) L.W. - 561}, the Tribunal applied 14 multiplier. Following the same decision, the Tribunal added 30% of the monthly income, as future prospects. Taking note of the number of dependants, the Tribunal deducted 1/4 towards personal and living expenses for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. Thus, arrived at the pecuniary loss of contribution to the family as Rs.74,69,280/- (44,460 x 12 x 14). That apart, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh, under head loss of consortium, for the loss of love and affection to the wife, minor daughters and mother, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4 lakhs (Rs.1 lakh each). Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-. Funeral expenses of Rs.20,000/- has been granted. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,44,280/- and rounded off to Rs.80,45,000/-.
4. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, legal representatives of the deceased have preferred the instant appeal, contending inter alia that as per Exs.P.16 and P.7, as stated supra, the Tribunal, ought to have taken the monthly income of Rs.54,681/-, and accordingly, should have computed the loss of contribution to the family. Further contention has been made that the academic excellence of the deceased who had obtained “Young Scientist Award” from Madurai Kamaraj University and Doctorate in Botany, have not been taken note off by the Tribunal, while determining the pecuniary loss. On the above grounds, enhancement is sought for.
5. Mr.M.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the second respondent/National Insurance Company, Chennai, submitted that the method adopted in determining the quantum of compensation is in accordance with the settled principles of law and that no enhancement is required.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. Details of the salary drawn by the deceased, in November 2013 are extracted hereunder:-
Bill Net Pay :Rs.45,523.00 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty three only)
8. Perusal of the same shows that the deceased had contributed a sum of Rs.5,318/-, towards Social Security Scheme (Contributory Pension Scheme). A sum of Rs.30/-, has been deducted under the head Family Benefit Fund. He had also contributed a sum of Rs.150/- towards New Health Insurance Scheme and paid Rs.500/- towards the first instalment, to clear the festival advance, which he had received, as per Ex.P.7 Pay slip. A sum of Rs.4,500/- had to be paid towards balance of festival allowance. Considering the fact that the balance amount would have been paid in equal instalments of Rs.500/- we are not inclined to deduct the same. Contribution made towards pension, a social security scheme, in terms of the service conditions is receivable by the heirs and hence not to be deducted, while arriving at the net income of the deceased. Therefore, while arriving at the net income of the deceased, we propose to deduct only Family Benefit Fund of Rs.30/- and Rs.150/- paid towards New Health Insurance Scheme, which are not refunded. Therefore, we propose to deduct Rs.180/- only. Our view is supported by a decision in Helen C.Rebello Vs. Maharashtra SRTC {(1999) 1 SCC 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.35, held as follows:-
“Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount., Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'Pecuniary advantage'' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co-relation . The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual”.
9. After deduction, income is calculated as hereunder:-
Monthly income ... Rs.54,681/- - 180 = Rs.54,500 + 30% = Rs.16,350.00 = Rs.70,850 (54,500 + 16350) x 12 = Rs. 8,50,200 Tax rate: (Income tax slab) Upto Rs.2,00,000/- Nil Rs.2,00,001/- to Rs.5,00,000/- - 10% ... Rs.30,000.00 Rs.5,00,001/- to Rs.10,00,000/- - 20% ... Rs.50,040.00 Above Rs.10,00,000 - 30% ...
Rs.80,040 x 3%= Rs. 2,401.00 Rs.80,040 + 2,401 = Rs.82,441.00 (Rs.8,50,200 – 82,441) = Rs.7,67,759 x ¾ = Rs. 5,75,819 x 14 = Rs.80,61,466 Love and affection is also a component taken into consideration while determining the sum, under the head loss of consortium.
10. 'Consortium' as per the Best v. Samuel Fox reported in 1952 AC 716 means, "Duty owned by a wife to her husband and vice versa, companionship, love and affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse, etc." In Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013(3) CTC 883, the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as follows:
“In legal parlance, 'Consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non- pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for Loss of Consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By Loss of Consortium, the Courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award atleast Rupees one lakh for Loss of Consortium.”
11. Going through the award, we find that besides, awarding a compensation of Rs.1 lakh, under the head loss of consortium, the Tribunal has once again awarded Rs.1 lakh separately, under the head loss of love and affection to the wife, which we are of the view is superfluous, excess and accordingly to be deducted.
12. Computation under the head, love and Affection is reduced to Rs.3 lakhs. There is no award under the head transportation. Therefore, we deem it fit to award Rs.10,000/- under the said head. There is no award under the head loss of damages to clothes and articles. A sum of Rs.2,000/- would be reasonable. After reworking, compensation due and payable to the legal representatives of the deceased/appellants, works out to Rs.85,48,469.50. Rounded off to Rs.85,48,470/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation, as hereunder:-
Annual Income ... Rs.80,61,466.00 Loss of love and Affection ... Rs.3,00,000.00 Loss of consortium ... Rs.1,00,000.00 Loss of estate ... Rs. 50,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 25,000.00 Transportation ... Rs. 10,000.00 Damages to clothes ... Rs. 2,000.00 ------------------ Rs.85,48,466.00 ------------------
Tribunal has awarded compensation ... Rs.80,44,280.00 On appeal, compensation arrived at ... Rs.85,48,470.00 -------------------
Enhanced amount Rs. 5,04,190.00 -------------------
13. During the course of hearing, Ms.V.Jeya Rohini, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even the amount awarded by the Tribunal, with interest and costs, has not been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.876 of 2014, before the Tribunal.
14. If that be so, National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai/second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.85,48,470/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs forty eight thousand four hundred and seventy only), now determined by this Court, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim till deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.876 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Enhanced amount shall be equally apportioned to the children/appellants 2 and 3. The share of the minors/appellants 2 and 3, shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks in fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme initially for a period of three years. The interest accruing on the share of the minors shall be paid to the 1st respondent/mother of the minors once in three months, till they attain majority. On such deposit being made, except the minors, the mother of the children/first appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, by making necessary applications.
15. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
(S.M.K.,J) (M.G.R.,J) 6th June 2017 Index: yes/No website: yes/No mvs.
To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
S.MANIKUMAR,J a n d M. GOVINDARAJ,J mvs Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1413 of 2017 6/6/2017 http://www.judis.nic.in