THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.A.No.SR45127 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Thanjavur. ... Appellant versus
1. Tmt.Vethambal @ Vethakarthi
2. Minor Aravind
3. Minor Anand (Minors represented by their mother and next friend Vethambal)
4. N.Gunasekaran ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.828 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The deceased Karthikeyan, aged 38 years, an Astrologer, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-, died in an accident that took place on 14.09.2005. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.828 of 2006, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Tiruppur.
2. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, both the oral and documents, passed the award of 8,80,300/- as compensation, the break-up details of which read as under:
Loss of dependency - Rs.7,95,312/-
Loss of consortium - Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 50,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation - Rs. 5,000/-
Total - Rs.8,80,312/-
Challenging the said award as excessive, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal along with the petition to condone the delay of 1071 days in filing the appeal.
3. Since this appeal is pending from the year 2014 at the SR stage, it is taken up for disposal at the SR stage itself.
4. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation is that as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)), the proper multiplier to be adopted for the age group between 36 and 40 is “15” and not “16”. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced accordingly.
5. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal reveals that the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, wherein, she deposed that the deceased was an Astrologer and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. and she filed Income Tax Return for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, which shows the net income of the deceased as Rs.69,760/-, Rs.70,855 and Rs.83,026/- respectively. Considering the same, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.74,560/- per annum and deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, fixed the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.49,707/-. Considering the age of deceased as 37 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.7,95,312/-. Awarding Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection to each of the minor children, the total compensation has been quantified at Rs.8,80,312/-, rounded off to Rs.8,80,300/-.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, for the age group between 36 and 40, the proper multiplier to be adopted is 15, however, the Tribunal has erroneously adopted the multiplier of 16 while quantifying the compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' is liable to be reduced. But the fact remains that in the present case, the future prospective increase in income of the deceased has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of quantifying the compensation. If future prospective increase in income is added in the income of the deceased, the amount of compensation that would have to be paid will be on the higher side. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the adoption of wrong multiplier would offset the loss on account of non-consideration of future prospective increase in income. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the award need not be reworked or interfered with.
7. In view of the same, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the SR stage itself. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.
8. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, 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. The claimants are entitled to compensation as per the ratio of the apportionment made by the Tribunal. The minor claimants would have attained majority by now. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the share to which the respective claimant is entitled to, as per the ratio of apportionment, directly to their Bank Account through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter, subject to production of necessary documents to prove the majority of the minor claimants.
04.01.2017
ogy/GLN To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruppur.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy/GLN C.M.A.No.SR45127 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 04.01.2017