One Deepankumar, aged about 19 years, studying I.T.I. at Guindy, died in an accident on 17.01.2011. Therefore, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
1.1. As against the claim made, the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation, payable by the Transport Corporation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any). The break-up details of the compensation read as under:
Loss of dependency (Rs.4,500 1/3 x 12 x 18) - Rs.6,48,000/-
1.2. Challenging the quantum of compensation as excessive, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that in the absence of any evidence with regard to age, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of '18', while calculating the compensation on account of loss of dependency; the compensation awarded under other heads are also unreasonable and excessive; hence, the award has to be reduced.
3. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal would go to show that P.W.1-Punithavathi, mother of the deceased, in her evidence, stated that her son, who studied I.T.I, was working at Chan Cable Systems and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m. She further stated that if her son had been alive, he would have earned more and would have safeguarded the life of the claimants.
3.1. On the side of the petitioners, the petitioners relied upon Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Death Report, Ex.P3-Postmortem Report, Ex.P4 AIR issued by Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ex.P5 rough sketch, Ex.P6 Charge Sheet, Ex.P7- Legal heir ship certificate; Ex.P8 Salary certificate.
3.2. Though the salary certificate has been produced on the side of the petitioners, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. As per the Sarla Verma's case, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and taken the monthly dependency at Rs.3,000/-.
3.3. When the age is stated to be 19 years, as per the Sarla Verma's case, the proper multiplier is 18 for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years. Hence, taking the multiplier of 18 is correct and it cannot be said to be baseless.
3.4. The loss of dependency has been quantified at Rs.6,48,000/- by making deduction of 1/3 and applying the formula (Rs.3,000 (Rs.4,500 1/3) x 12 x 18) i.e., Rs.6,48,000/-. Therefore the compensation on account of loss of dependency cannot be said to be excessive.
4. It is relevant to point out that the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is very low and it has to be awarded at the rate of Rs.50,000/- each. Therefore, the award under the head of loss to estate would be shifted to the head of loss of love and affection i.e., at Rs.65,000 to each of the petitioners (Rs.25,000 + Rs.40,000 to each). Therefore, the award under other head also cannot be said to be excessive.
5. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award dated 05.02.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
6. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount, less the amount already deposited if any, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.01.2017 ogy To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy C.M.A.No.434 of 2017 31.01.2017