Vs.
1.A.Rajarika Ignatius Rukha
2.A.Angel Mary Anitha
3.A.Angel Sahaya Ajitha ... Respondents 1 to3/ Petitioners
4.S.Vasanthakumar ... 4th Respondent/ 1st Respondent
5.Flavia ... 5th Respondent/ 2nd Respondent
6.Mary ... 6th Respondent/ 4th Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2004, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ? District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
!For Appellant : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian ^For Respondents : Mr.R.Jenifar Bibin for Mr.T.Selvakumaran for R.1 to R.3 No appearance for R.4 to R.6 Cross Objection (MD)No.34 of 2009:
1.A.Rajarika Ignatius Rukha
2.A.Angel Mary Anitha
3.A.Angel Sahaya Ajitha ... Cross Objectors/ Respondents Vs.
1.The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Opp. Anna Stadium, Balamore Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... 1st Respondent/ Appellant
2.S.Vasanthakumar
3.Flavia
4.Mary ... Respondents 2 to 4/ Respondents 4 to 6 PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2004, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ? District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
For Cross Objectors : R.Jenifar Bibin for Mr.T.Selvakumaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian for R.1 No appearance for R.2 to R.4 :COMMON JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award of Rs.3,88,652/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) for the death of one Aloysious, a retired Subedar of Indian Army, aged about 5 years and re- employed as an Accountant in C.S.D. Canteen of 11th Tamil Nadu N.C.C. Battalion, earning about Rs.9,586/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only), in the accident occurred on 09.04.2003 and when the deceased was returning in his motorcycle from his place of work to his residence, he was hit by a Tempo insured with the appellant-Insurance Company which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Whereas the claimants have filed Cross Objection (MD)No.34 of 2009 seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr.R.Jenifar Bibin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants.
3. Though Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal failed to deduct the pension amount drawn by the widow of the deceased, a perusal of the award of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal erroneously deducted a sum of Rs.3,295/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Five only) being the pension amount received by the widow of the deceased and it is a settled law that the benefit is a statutory benefit and she is entitled to the same and it need not be deducted from the compensation to be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma reported in 2016 (2) TN MAC 721 (SC) and therefore, the same is set aside.
4. The Tribunal, based on Exs.P.6 ? pension certificate and P.7 ? salary certificate, rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,586/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only) and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, the monthly income would come to Rs.6,391/- (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One only) [Rs.9,586/- - Rs.3,195/-].
5. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants contended that the age of the deceased was 50 years based on Ex.P.2 ? post- mortem certificate, the Tribunal rightly determined the age of the deceased at 55 years as per Exs.P.6 ? pension certificate and P.7 ? salary certificate and according to the age of the deceased, the multiplier to be adopted is '11' and therefore, the loss of income would be Rs.8,43,612/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve only) [Rs.6,391/- X 12 X 11].
6. The first respondent/wife of the deceased lost her husband at the age of 43 years and she was awarded a meagre and negligible amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of consortium and that shocks the conscious of this Court and therefore, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is awarded towards loss of consortium to the first respondent/wife of the deceased.
7. The respondents 2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased, who attained the marital age at the time of the accident and they lost their father, who along would have found them suitable alliance. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) awarded to them for loss of love and affection is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only).
8. A sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) awarded towards loss of estate is confirmed.
9. A sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) awarded towards funeral expenses is very low and therefore, a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is awarded under the heads 'funeral expenses' and 'transportation charges'.
10. A sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) awarded towards loss of articles is confirmed. Similarly, a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) awarded towards loss of vehicle is also confirmed.
11. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants and the sixth respondent/mother of the deceased are entitled to get the following compensation:
Sl.
No.
Heads Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Amount reduced/ enhanced by this Court (Rs.) Total (Rs.)
1. Loss of Income 3,61,152.00 (+) 4,82,460.00 8,43,612.00
2. Loss of Consortium to the first respondent/wife 5,000.00 (+) 95,000.00 1,00,000.00
3. Loss of Love and Affection to the respondents 2 and 3/children - Rs.75,000/- each.
15,000.00 (+) 1,35,000.00 1,50,000.00
4. Loss of Estate 2,500.00 Nil 2,500.00
5. Funeral Expenses 2,000.00
6.
12. Out of the above said award amount, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are entitled to get their respective shares as per the apportionment made hereunder:
Sl.
No.
Claimants Amount(s) Rs.
1. 1st Respondent/1st Claimant/Wife of the deceased 5,00,000.00
2. 2nd Respondent/2nd Claimant/Daughter of the deceased 2,50,000.00
3. 3rd Respondent/3rd Claimant/Daugher of the deceased 2,50,000.00
4. 6th Respondent/Mother of the deceased 1,30,000.00 Total 11,30,000.00 However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% per annum, stands confirmed.
13. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of;
(ii) Cross Objection (MD)No.34 of 2009 is allowed;
(iii) The respondents 1 to 3/claimants and the sixth respondent/mother of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,30,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs;
(iv) The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to transfer the entire award amount along with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the respective Personal Savings Account Numbers of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants and the sixth respondent/mother of the deceased, as per the apportionment made by this Court, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting their Account Details by the officials of the appellant-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(v) Though the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are represented by a Counsel, it is appropriate to mark a copy of this judgment directly to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants and the sixth respondent/mother of the deceased, free of costs; and
(vi) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.