(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.12,59,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased, from the date of claim, till deposit, Insurance Company, has filed the present appeal, contending inter-alia that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-, without any basis. That apart, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards love and affection, is also assailed on the ground that it is excessive.
2. On 16/8/2010, at 7.00 p.m., when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the first respondent's motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN19A- 1794, the motorcyclist rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit a pedestrian, near Karanai Village, Old Rice Mill. In the result, the pillion rider sustained multiple head and facial injuries, and died on the same day. First respondent/motorcyclist died and respondents 2 and 3 are his legal representatives in the appeal.
3. Claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-, legal representatives have filed M.C.O.P.No.294 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
4. Vide judgment, dated 18/7/2014, the Tribunal, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle and consequently, fastened liability on the respondents 2 to 4, to pay compensation and quantified as Rs.12,59,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim till realisation.
5. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the legal representatives/parents of the deceased have filed the instant appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. On the aspect of avocation and income, P.W.1, has deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Wood sculpture and earned Rs.9,000/- p.m. Upon perusal of Exs.P8 to 11 and 13, the Claims Tribunal has recorded that the deceased was working as a Wood Sculpture. However, in the absence of any supportive evidence to prove monthly income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the same as Rs.7,000/- and added 50% as loss of future prospects i.e. Rs.7,000 x 50% = Rs.3,500/-, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 55. Monthly income has been fixed at Rs.10,500/-.
8. For the purpose of applying multiplier and further deduction towards the personal and living expenses, the Claims Tribunal has considered a decision in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (5) LW 561 and deducted 1/2 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After applying '18' multiplier for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency, the Claims Tribunal has arrived at the loss of contribution at Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 18 x ½). In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,59,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till deposit.
9. Though Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company assailed the quantum of compensation, on the grounds, stated supra, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions.
10. In Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2011 (2) TNMAC 190 SC, a sum of Rs.4,500/- has been claimed as monthly wages for the deceased, stated to be a coolie. The claims tribunal therein has taken Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. However, when the matter was taken up on appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having regard to the wages of a labourer, during the relevant period (2004 - between Rs.100 to Rs.150/- per day) found fault with the tribunal for reducing the income from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- and determined the same at Rs.4,500/-.
11. In Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Division Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has determined Rs.6,500/- as the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who sustained injuries in the accident, which occurred in February 2008.
12. In the light of the discussion and decisions, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be excessive and does not warrant interference.
13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
14. Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, has been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.294 of 2011, dated 18/7/2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
15. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, by making necessary application before the Tribunal.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.M.K.,J) (M.G.R.,J) 8th June 2017 mvs.
Index: yes/No website: yes/No To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai
S. MANIKUMAR, J
AND
M.GOVINDARAJ,J
mvs.
C.M.A.No.70 of 2015
8/6/2017
http://www.judis.nic.in