1. On 16.03.2002, at about 4.15 p.m, when a certain Sukur Sahib was parking his two wheeler bearing number TN 29W 9203, a lorry bearing number TNB 1179 dashed against him, owing to which Sukur Sahib suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to them two days later on 18.03.2002. Seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, his legal heirs moved the Tribunal. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs.8,36,652/-, out of which, compensation for loss of dependency alone constituted Rs.7,09,152/-. The victim was working as Line-Inspector in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.11,081/- as his monthly salary. This was proved by Ext.P-4 salary certificate. After providing 1/3 as deduction, the Tribunal has reckoned the net monthly support at Rs.7,387/- to his family and applied 8 as the multiplier as per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994. Including the other heads of non pecuniary compensation it had arrived at the award amount as indicated above. This is now challenged by the Insurance Company.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal went wrong in relying on Ext.P-4 when it is not proved by examining the employer of the deceased. He also added that the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal too was high, since the deceased is only three years to superannuation.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that based on the Sarla Verma dictum, if the deduction were made and the multiplier was applied there would be a vast increase in the compensation amount payable. He also pointed out that the compensation awarded for loss of consortium and for love and affection to his 12 children are all very low and the same may be enhanced by invoking inherent powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of C.P.C.
4. After hearing rival submission and perusing the award in question, I do not find any error in the approach of the Tribunal. Admittedly, Ext.P-4 has been received in evidence without any objection to its marking. This apart the deceased was working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is an instrumentality of the State and no material is brought to the notice of this Court to suspect the veracity of Ext.P-4.
5. So far as the submission of the counsel for the claimants/ respondents are concerned, this Court is of the view that since they have not filed any cross objection and also given the fact the case is of the year 2001, the Court would be doing injustice to the other side if it invoked Order XLI Rule 33 of C.P.C. in the present case.
6. To conclude this Court finds no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire award amount has already deposited on 19.07.2005. The claimants would therefore be free to withdraw the same forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.08.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No asi/ssn To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court, Krishnagiri.
N.SESHASAYEE, J., asi/ssn C.M.A.No.4121 of 2005 and C.M.P.Nos.13891 and 20103 of 2005 04.08.2017