This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award of Rs.9,05,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Five Thousand only) for the death of one Ilambaridhi, son of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, in the accident occurred on 12.09.2010, aged about 25 years, a centring worker, earning about Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month and when he was riding his two wheeler to Kallal from Karaikudi, the car belonging to the third respondent insured with the appellant-Insurance Company driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the two wheeler.
2. Heard Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass, learned Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.
3. The third respondent/owner of the car remained exparte before the Tribunal and therefore, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with as per the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mrs.Jamunabai v. Chhote Singh reported in I (2004) ACC 190 (FB).
4. The only question to be decided is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) fixed by the Tribunal towards monthly income of the deceased is on the higher side and therefore, he seeks to reduce the same in the absence of any proof regarding the monthly income of the deceased.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has got force and in the absence of any proof regarding the monthly income, the determination of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is on the higher side and the same is set aside. However, the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC), determined the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month for a vegetable vendor and added 50% towards future prospects and fixed the monthly income at Rs.9,750/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) and therefore, this Court determines the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) including future prospects and not a sum of Rs.9,750/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). Further, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which was already done by the Tribunal rightly.
7. The Tribunal committed a grave error in not choosing the multiplier according to the age of the deceased. The Honourable Supreme Court in Amit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 and in Mansoor and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 481, authoritatively held that the age of the deceased alone should be used for determining the multiplier and therefore, the multiplier '14' applied according to the age of the mother of the deceased is set aside and the age of the deceased was 25 years as per Ex.P.2 - post- mortem certificate and hence, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), is 18. Accordingly, the loss of income would be Rs.8,64,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Sixty Four Thousand only) [Rs.4000/- X 12 X 18].
8. The amounts awarded under the other heads, viz., a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection; a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards transportation charges are all reasonable and they are confirmed.
9. Since the Tribunal, more or less, awarded the same amount of Rs.9,05,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Five Thousand only) in a different formula, the amount awarded by this Court, viz., a sum of Rs.9,29,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Twenty Nine Thousand only) [Rs.8,64,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/-], is rounded off to Rs.9,05,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Five Thousand only). The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed.
10. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of;
(ii) The respondents 1 and 2/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,05,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Five Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs;
(iii) The entire award amount of Rs.9,05,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Five Thousand only) shall be apportioned equally by the respondents 1 and 2/claimants along with accrued interest and costs;
(iv) As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, since the driver of the car did not have the badge to drive the commercial vehicle, the Tribunal, for violation of policy conditions, exonerated the appellant-Insurance Company and ordered 'pay and recovery'. Though the said conclusion reached by the Tribunal is as per law, since the Tribunal already directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the entire award amount and recover the same from the third respondent/owner of the vehicle, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to transfer the entire award amount along with accrued interest and costs, to the respective Personal Savings Account Numbers of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, as per the apportionment made by this Court, less the amount already deposited, if any, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting their Account Details by the officials of the Appellant-Insurance Company, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(v) Insofar as the amount already deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal is concerned, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are directed to submit their Account Details to the Tribunal forthwith and on receipt of the same, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the same to the respective Personal Savings Account Numbers of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants through RTGS/NEFT system, within a period of two weeks thereafter, as per the apportionment made by this Court;
(vi) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -
Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.