(Judgment of this court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.) This appeal is directed against the award passed 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. .
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 and immediately he was admitted in Tirunelveli Government Hospital and thereafter at Kokkirakulam Devi Hospital. Despite best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 05.11.2010.
3.The claimants have alleged that they have lost their only breadwinner due to the negligence of the driver of the trailer lorry. So in order to claim compensation, the owner of the Car and the insurer were impleaded as the respondents 3 & 4.
4.Before the Tribunal, all the respondents contested the claim petition disputing the manner of accident and also contending that the claim was excessive. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined one Subramanian as PW2 and in his evidence, he has stated that when they were proceeding on the Highways, the trailer lorry came from a Branch Road and suddenly entered into the Highways. After perusing 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, the Tribunal 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.
5.Since this appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement, this Court need not elaborate on the other aspects.
6.The wife of the deceased, who has given evidence as PW1 stating before the Tribunal 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.
7.The Tribunal, based on the evidence has assessed the loss of income, by taking monthly salary as Rs.32,300/-, after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal income for a period of 15 months. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,84,300/- for the left out service of 15 months and Rs.60,000/- towards loss of pension amount. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,44,300 towards loss of income; 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.
8.Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned counsel for the claimants contended 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, it has to be set aside and the compensation should be enhanced.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, has awarded reasonable compensation and even if the claimants are entitled for adoption of multiplier '9', this is a fit case to apply split multiplier.
10.In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that split multiplier can be applied to the facts of this case.
11.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 + years service left over. In similar facts, this Court, by appling the decision reported in 2014(1) TN MAC 481 in the case of Puttamma Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy has applied a split multiplier to determine loss of income.
12.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 a period of 15 months, the loss of contribution would be Rs.3,97,500/- and the remaining period of 7 years by taking 50% of the salary, the claimants contribution to the family Rs.11,13,000/- (Rs.13,250/- x 12 x 7). The total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,10,500/-. The award of the tribunal in other heads is confirmed.
13.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 complainant, the first claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to withdraw Rs.7,70,500/- and the claimants 2 and 3 are each entitled to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- with accrued interest without filing any formal petition before the tribunal. No costs.
To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (The Special Sub Court), Tirunelveli.
.