The claimant in MCOP No.46 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court, Chengelpat) has filed the above claim petition, claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of K. Saravanan. The claimant is the mother of the deceased.
2. The deceased was 17 years old at the time of accident. The accident had occurred on 04.05.1998. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum, fixed by the Tribunal, the claimant has come forward with this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant would contend that the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased, lost her only son and the compensation, granted by the Tribunal, was too low. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was employed as a Cleaner at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.150/-per day. He has also pointed out that the trial Court awarded a meager amount of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and it has not awarded any amount towards transportation of the body. He would further contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospectus of the deceased, while fixing the monthly income of the deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the trial Court awarded a reasonable compensation and the award requires no interference.
5. The Insurance Company did not dispute their liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-. The claimant lost her another son and her husband long back and she was dependent on the deceased at the time of accident.
6. P.W.1 the mother of the deceased has given evidence that her son (deceased) used to give her Rs.600/- per week. There is no contra evidence to reject her testimony. Having regard to the date of the accident, I am inclined to hold that the deceased would have earned at least Rs.2,400/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased must be taken to be Rs.2,400/- per month.
7. It is not disputed that the deceased was 17 years old at the time of accident. As per the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another) (2009 (6) SCC 121, the proper multiplier to be applied is 18.
8. As the deceased was only 17 years old at the time of the accident, as per the dictum laid down in Rajesh and Others vs Rajbir Singh & others (2013) (9) SCC 54, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, the total loss of dependency would be as detailed below:
9. The Tribunal awarded a reasonable amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which, in my considered view, is just and reasonable. The Tribunal omitted to award any amount towards transportation of body. Therefore, I am inclined to award Rs.2,000/- under this head.
10. The compensation is re-assessed as follows:
The enhanced amount shall carry 7.5% interest.
11. It is informed that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire Award Amount. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the difference amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After such deposit is being made, it is open to the claimant, to withdraw the compensation amount with interest, as fixed by this Court, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.
12. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. There is no order as to costs.
21.02.2017 sr Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court, Chengelpat)
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
N.AUTHINATHAN.J., sr CMA No.2030 of 2005 21-02-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in