(Judgment of this court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.) Dissatisfied with the quantum awarded in MCOP No.238 of 2011, dated 03.10.2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.2), Tirunelveli, the claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2.The case of the claimants is that on the fateful date i.e., on 30.10.2010, the deceased Sathasivan was travelling as a passenger in the Car TN-74-R-5994 from Vadaseri to Thoothukudi. When the vehicle was proceeding near Rajagopalapuram Vilakku, the Trailer Lorry TN-51-B-3369 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Car. In the impact, the deceased has sustained grievous injury. Despite providing best treatment, at Tirunelveli Government Hospital and thereafter at Kokkirakulam Devi Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 05.11.2010.
3.Before the Tribunal, all the respondents contested the claim disputing the manner of accident and also contending that the claim was excessive. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined one Subramanian http://www.judis.nic.in as PW2 and in his evidence, he has stated that when they 3 were proceeding on the Highways, the trailer lorry came from a Branch Road, suddenly entered into the Highways and caused the accident. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the eye witness PW2, Ex.P1 First Information Report, Ex.P2 Final report filed before the Criminal Court, Ex.P5 sketch, Ex.P6 Observation Mahazar, Exs.P7 & Ex.P8 reports of the motor vehicles Inspector, held that the driver of the lorry caused the accident. The evidence produced by the respondents to show that both the drivers were negligent was rejected by the Tribunal.
4.The respondents have accepted the findings of the Tribunal. As stated above this is claimants appeal for enhancement, hence, this Court need not elaborate on the other aspects.
5.The wife of the deceased, who has given evidence as PW1 deposed that her deceased husband was working as a Manager in Indian Overseas Bank and his monthly salary was Rs.48,427.50/- at the time of the accident and produced Ex.P46 salary certificate. PW1 has admitted in her evidence that her husband was aged about 58 years on the date of accident and he would retire at the age of 60 years.
6.The Tribunal, based on the evidence has assessed the loss of income, by taking monthly salary as Rs.32,300/-, after deducting 1/3 rd amount towards his personal income awarded Rs.4,84,300/- for the left http://www.judis.nic.in 4 out service of 15 months and Rs.60,000/- towards loss of pension; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs. 40,000/- for loss of love and affection. In total, the tribunal has awarded Rs.6,04,300/- together with interest.
7.It is contended by Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned counsel for the claimants that as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma, the proper multiplier is '9', but the Tribunal has calculated the loss of income only till his retirement and therefore, compensation has to be enhanced.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 argued in support of the findings of the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the award is reasonable and even if the claimants are entitled for adoption of multiplier '9', this is a fit case to apply split multiplier.
9.In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that split multiplier can be applied to the facts of this case.
10.It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Manager in Indian Overseas Bank and he died at the age of 58 years and he was having 1 ½ years service left over. In similar facts, this Court, by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014(1) TN MAC 481 (Puttamma http://www.judis.nic.in Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy) applied a split multiplier to 5 determine loss of income.
11.It is a settled law that the income should be calculated less deductions. By doing so, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.26,500/-. For left over service, the loss of contribution would be Rs. 3,97,500/- and the remaining period of 7 years the amount comest to Rs. 11,13,000/- (Rs.13,250/- x 12 x 7). The total loss of dependency would be Rs.15,10,500/-. The award of the tribunal in other heads are confirmed.
12.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP No.238 of 2011 is modified as Rs.15,70,500/- as against Rs.6,04,300/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount with modified interest and costs, less the amount already deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such compliance, the first claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to withdraw Rs.7,70,500/- and the claimants 2 and 3 each are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- with accrued interest. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount without any formal petition forthwith. No costs.