The deceased, Subramani, aged 33 years, eking his livelihood as a mason, died in the accident that occurred on 22.06.2008. The first claimant, wife, aged 28 years, second claimant, son, aged 11 years, third claimant, daughter aged 9 years and 4th claimant, mother, aged 53 years, filed a claim petition in respect of death of one Subramani, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
2. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, granted compensation in a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- under the following heads:
Loss of income - Rs.8,10,000/-
Loss of consortium - Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 25,000/- Cremation expenses - Rs. 10,000/-
Total - Rs.8,70,000/-
Challenging the quantum of compensation as excessive, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submits that the award of compensation at Rs.8,70,000/- is excessive and the monthly income ought not to have been fixed at Rs.6,000/-, when no documentary evidence have been filed to substantiate the income of the deceased.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submit that the amount of Rs.6,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. However, the Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospective increase in income of the deceased and, therefore, this Court should enhance the compensation under the head loss of income.
5. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal reveals that on the basis of the averments in the claim petition stating that the deceased was eking his livelihood as a mason and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. It should be borne in mind that the accident happened in the year 2008. In the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate receipt of the income, the Courts have consistently been fixing income on much lower side. Therefore, fixing of monthly income at Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is excessive. However, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospective increase in income of the deceased. The deceased would definitely have earned much more income had he been alive. Therefore, this Court feels that the amount of Rs.6,000/= could be taken to include the future prospective increase in income of the deceased. Insofar as the deduction and multiplier applied adopted are concerned, the same have been done as per the ratio laid down in Sarala Verma's case. Therefore, on the above reasoning, this Court confirms the compensation quantified by the Tribunal at Rs.8,10,000/- under the head loss of income as just and reasonable and, the same does not warrant any interference.
6. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the head loss of love and affection is concerned, the minor claimants are aged 11 and 9 years respectively at the time of accident. They have lost their father, who would have given them valuable support and guidance and would have been beside them at the need of the hour showering all his love and affection on them, but for the unfortunate accident. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- under the head love and affection is far on the lower side. This Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each claimant under the head loss of love and affection would be just and reasonable compensation. Similarly, the mother of the deceased is also entitled to compensation under the head loss of love and affection. She has lost her son, who would have showered her with love and care at her older age. Therefore, this Court awards compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the mother of the deceased. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each is awarded under the head loss of love and affection to each minor claimant. And Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the 4th claimant/mother of the deceased.
7. It is seen from the award that a sum of Rs.25,000/- only has been awarded under the head loss of consortium. The spouse has lost her husband at a very young age and she needs to be compensated for the loss. Accordingly, this Court awards compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of consortium.
8. Accordingly, this Court enhances the compensation by Rs.3,00,000/- and awards a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- as total compensation payable to the claimants. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed enhancing the compensation as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation as awarded by this Court, less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share of the major claimants to their bank accounts through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter. Insofar as the share of the minor claimants are concerned, the same shall be deposited in interest bearing fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks till they attain majority and the first respondent would be entitled to withdraw the interest accruing on such deposit once in three months. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order on the claimants after paying the necessary court fee on the enhanced compensation.
28.07.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ogy/GLN To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional District Court), Dharapuram.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy/GLN C.M.A.No.2023 of 2017 28.07.2017