Challenging the award dated 30.11.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, as inadequate, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed this appeal.
2. In the accident that took place on 19.3.2011, the deceased, Karupannan, aged about 55 years, breathed his last. The legal representatives of the deceased, viz., the wife and children filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- by doing brokerage business [in banana fruits, land] and he was also actively involved in politics.
3. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.3,72,600/-, the break up of which are as hereunder :-
i. Loss of earning capacity - Rs.3,45,600/-
ii. Loss of love and affection - Rs. 10,000/-
iii. Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/-
iv. Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/-
v. Transport expenses - Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.3,72,600/-
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants submitted that it is customary for persons with experience to indulge themselves in healthy activities by which they earn for maintaining their family in a better condition. It is further contended that the deceased, though aged 55 years, was actively involved in politics and was also doing brokerage business, by which he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/-. However, the said fact has not been considered by the Tribunal in proper perspective and, the Tribunal, without any cogent and reasonable cause, has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which is wholly unjustified and, therefore, prays that the quantum of compensation needs to be enhanced.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/ insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, taking into consideration all the materials on record and also considering the oral evidence, in the absence of any document to prove the income of the deceased, has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/= and, therefore, no interference is called for with the award passed by the Tribunal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the materials available in the typed set of documents.
7. The accident had taken place in the year 2011. The cost of living index had soared leaps and bounds over the two decades and even an agriculturist, in the present day scenario, earns a sum of atleast Rs.6,500/-. The Supreme Court has also stressed that Rs.6,500/- would be a nominal amount to fix as income for an agriculturist. That being the case, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- when it is not in dispute that the deceased was actively engaged in politics and had been the ex-president of the Panchayat and that he was engaged in brokerage business. The deceased would definitely have earned a sum of Rs.6,500/-, to maintain his family, which is a dire necessity in the present day scenario. In such view of the matter, this Court feels that an amount of Rs.6,500/- be fixed as the monthly earning of the deceased.
8. Once the monthly income is fixed at Rs.6,500/-, after deducting 1/5th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be safely fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Though the multiplier of 9 should have been adopted, according to the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009[6] SCC 121, however, wrong multiplier of 8 has been adopted. Adopting the multiplier of 9, the compensation towards loss of earning to the family is quantified at Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.5000X12 X9).
9. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the amount awarded under the head 'Loss of Consortium' is on the much lower side and feels that the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under the head 'Loss of Consortium' to the wife is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Similarly, the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection' is also quantified at Rs.20,000/- for each claimant totalling to a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- under the above head. The compensation under the head 'Transport Expenses' is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, and the compensation under the head 'funeral expenses' enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the award of Rs.3,72,600/- passed by the Tribunal is modified and the award stands enhanced to Rs.8,15,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the award passed by the Tribunal in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. It is informed that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire award amount as ordered by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the balance portion of the amount as enhanced by this Court along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the apportionment ordered by the Tribunal. It is further made clear that the default period, i.e., the period of delay in filing the appeal, working out to 870 days, will not carry any interest on the enhanced compensation. Deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation shall be paid before drafting of the decree.
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No gya/GLN To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Addl. District Judge) Bhavani, Erode District.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
24.02.2017
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
gya/GLN C.M.A.No.366 of 2017 24.02.2017