The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award of Rs.4,41,000/- for the death of one Miss.Amudha, who died in an accident occurred on 25.04.2003.
2. The case of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants is that their daughter Miss.Amudhua was a student in a College went for an educational tour along with other students in a van owned by the third respondent. The van was rash and negligently driven by the driver of the third respondent and as a result, the van capsized and two students died on the spot and 14 students got grievous injuries. The daughter of the respondents 1 and 2 was one of the students who died on the spot. According to the respondents/claimants their daughter was also taking private tuition for English medium students and earning about Rs.4,000/- per month. Apart from that, one of the important factors to be considered by this Court as well as the tribunal was that the deceased was the only child of the respondents/claimants.
3. The tribunal took into consideration the qualification of the deceased that she was a graduate in Commerce proved by Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 and she got diploma in computer course proved by Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 and also taking into consideration that she was studying PGDCA in Devaangar College, which was proved by Ex.P28 and Ex.P29, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. The annual contribution of the deceased to the respondents/claimants was fixed at Rs.36,000/- and adopted multiplier of 17 taking into consideration of the age of the deceased 21. Accordingly, a sum of RS.4,08,000/- was calculated as loss of dependency, Rs.25,000/- was granted towards love and affection, Rs.6,000/- was granted towards transportation charges and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total Rs.4,41,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly conceded that the tribunal rightly fixed the liability on the third respondent and the insurance company is liable to pay the amount for liability of the owner. However, he found fault with the monthly income arrived by the tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a spinster, the multiplier of 17 should not have been adopted taking into consideration of the age of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dependency of the parents on the deceased was only up to her marriage.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants pointed out that the claimants were able to prove the higher qualifications possessed by the deceased and that the monthly income arrived at Rs.3,000/- was low and it was fixed without taking into consideration of the future prospects. She also contended that the deceased was the only child of the respondents/claimants and in that event, the dependency of the parents throughout their life was on the deceased and hence the proper multiplier applied by the tribunal cannot be disturbed.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. A perusal of the award would show that the deceased got number of degrees and qualifications including diplomas which are essential qualification in these days to earn money. The future prospect of the deceased has to be considered. Hence, the monthly income fixed by the tribunal was low. The proper monthly income in view of the qualifications possessed by the deceased would be Rs.4,500/-. This conclusion is reached by taking into consideration of the notional income of Rs.1,500/- fixed in the Motor Vehicles Act as per second schedule which was inserted with effect from 14.11.1994, whereas we are in 2009. So far no amendment/correction has been made in the second schedule. The Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 538 fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased after 1/3rd deduction in the absence of any definite material about income. When such is the position, a person with number of degrees and diplomas cannot be said to be earning about Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the proper monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.4,500/- after deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses, her contribution would be Rs.3,000/- per month and annual contribution would be Rs.36,000/-.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the multiplier adopted by the tribunal was on the higher side. By considering the age of the deceased, it should be 11 as per the second schedule, as the first claimant/mother was aged about 52 years. According to him, the proper multiplier would be 11.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has got force in view of the factum of dependency of the aged parents on the deceased. Hence the proper multiplier would be as contended by the counsel for the appellant is taken as 11. If proper multiplier 11 is multiplied with annual contribution Rs.36,000/-, the loss of dependency would be at Rs.3,96,000/-. Accordingly, the loss of income as arrived by the Tribunal Rs.4,08,000/- is reduced to Rs.3,96,000/-.
10. Towards love and affection, Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the tribunal to the parents. The deceased was the only child of the parents. No amount of compensation would compensate for the loss of the beloved child of the parents. Considering the factum of single child of the family, the amount awarded to the parents towards love and affection is too low and accordingly Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Regarding transportation charges Rs.6,000/- was awarded and the same is reduced to Rs.3,000/-. Towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- was given and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the tribunal is modified as follows;
11. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the tribunal is modified in the terms as mentioned above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be no order as to costs.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that so far no amount has been deposited before the tribunal in spite of filing of execution petition by the respondents/claimants. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks four weeks time to deposit entire amount along with interest and costs. Accordingly, the appellant is granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to deposit the entire amount. on such deposit being made within four weeks as given by this Court, the tribunal is directed to pay the entire award amount to the claimants within ten days thereafter.
jikr To
1.The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Arupukkottai.
2.New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Manager, Bharathiyar Street, Sathur.