P. Rengarajan v. Santhi — 1997 DIGILAW 621 (MAD)

Judgment : D. RAJU, J.: 1. The above appeal has been filed by the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the Insurance Company against the judgment and the award of compensation dated 26.9.1991 in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Pattukottai. The claimant before the tribunal below is the wife of one Thyagarajan, who died in the accident impleading also to the claim petition, the father and mother of the deceased as respondents 4 and 5. The educational qualification of the deceased was M.A., B.Ed., and he was working as Direct Recruit Sub Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. At the time of his death, he was serving as Sub Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station. It was claimed that the deceased was a bright Officer who earned appreciation from all quarters, even at the threshold of his career, that at about 6 a.m. on 22.6.1989 when he was travelling by his motor bicycle bearing registration No.TNZ.2260 to go to his work spot from Mannargudi, the driver of the lorry (first respondent) bearing Registration No.TNT.479 belonging to the second respondent coming on the opposite side, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bicycle without even observing the rules of the road or sounding the horn, as a consequence of which, the victim was thrown off from the motor bicycle and sustained serious injuries. Though initially the victim was taken to a private hospital at Needamangalam, later he was taken to the Government Hospital, where he was pronounced deed. Further, the case of the claimant was that he was drawing a salary of Rs.2,400 per month, that he had other allowances due to his credit; that if he was not dead, he would have worked for another 25 years in service; that the 4th respondent, the mother, is actually living with her husband, the 5th respondent and her outer children; that neither the 4th respondent nor the 5th respondent were ever dependants since they had their own independent income and properties and that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.7 lakhs to make good the loss of her husband on various grounds as claimed in the petition. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The third respondent filed a counter contending that it is for the claimants to prove that the first respondent driver had proper licence to drive, the vehicle in question and that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner without observing the rules of the road as claimed and that the driver of the lorry could not be really held responsible for the accident and therefore, not entitled to any sum as claimed. 3. The 4th respondent mother contended that the deceased was given good education by her husband on borrowing money and that for some time initially, she was also living with the deceased and had taken care of him and it is only after the marriage the deceased was living separately and got involved in the accident. It was also claimed mat the deceased used to send money often for medical expense, etc., to the 4th respondent mother and that both, as dependants, as also the legal heir, she also is entitled to an equal share of the compensation, which according, to her, was a half share in the compensation to be awarded. The 5th respondent father has adopted the counter filed by the 4th respondent. 4. On the above claims and counter claims, the petition came to be tried and P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, of which, the claimant was P.W.1 and for the respondents, the 5th respondent father was examined. On both sides, documents were marked. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal below, by its Judgment and Award dated 26.9.1991, held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the second respondent by the first respondent driver and mere-fore the respondents 1 to are liable. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal below arrived at a sum of Rs.4,90,800 payable with interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment While awarding such sum, the tribunal below further apportioned the amount by granting half share to the claimant and the other half share to the parents who are respondents 4 and 5. In arriving at the compensation as awarded, the Tribunal below accepted the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,249 per month and a total of Rs.2,400 inclusive of travelling allowance and deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of income was fixed at Rs.1,920 and the annual loss at Rs.23,040. Applying a multiplier of 25, the total compensation payable was on that account arrived at Rs.5,76,000. For lump sum payment, l/5th of the amount was deducted and therefore, it was arrived at Rs.4,60,800. As against the claim under the heading of loss of Consortum, Rs.15,000 was allowed, and a sum of Rs.18,000 in favour of the parents for love and affection. Rs.5,000 was allowed towards expenses for carrying the victim to the hospital and as funeral expenses. Hence, the compensation of Rs.4,90,800 was awarded. Aggrieved, the owner of the lorry and the Insurance company have filed the above appeal. 5. . Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the tribunal below committed on error in fixing the responsibility for the accident on the driver of the lorry, and that at. any rate, the quantum of compensation awarded is unreasonable and too-much on the higher side, particularly having regard to the principles applied in determining the some which, according to the learned counsel, are opposed to law and contrary to the decisions of the Apex Court, as also this Court. The learned counsel for the claimant, wife, while adopting the reasons assigned by the tribunal below in the matter of awarding the compensation, submitted that taking into consideration the total compensation awarded, the award does not call for any interference and if at all there is only justification for revision and enhancement of the same. It was also, contended that the award of equal share in favour of respondents 4 and 5 is only illegal, unwarranted and unjustified, having regard to the fact that not only the father and mother were not dependants of the deceased, they having substantial lands, business and income and living along with other sons, hut also on account of the fact that the deceased and the claimant wife got married on their own and it was a love marriage and the family was estranged and the victim was never treating the parents as dependants after such marriage. The claimant has also filed a cross objection. The claimant has also filed a cross objection. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision reported in U.P. State Road Trans-port Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra U.P. State Road Trans-port Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra U.P. State Road Trans-port Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra , (1996)2 L. W. 266 and Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1274 to contend that the multiplier of 25 applied is contrary to the categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court and a number of decisions of this Court. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision reported in Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1274 also for the contention that the manner and method of working out the multiplies and representing the annual loss of dependency is also irregular and arbitrary. So far as the learned counsel for the first respondent/cross-objector is concerned, while adopting’ the reasons given by the tribunal below and reit- erating the stand taken before the tribunal, the learned counsel contended that there was absolutely no justification to give half share to the respondents 4 and 5. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 was not present either on 12.6.1997 when the case was called and again today when the case was heard in full for considerable length of time. The learned counsel appearing on either side invited our attention to the materials on record. On going through the same, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the Tribunal below with reference to the manner in which the accident occurred and the responsibility fixed for the accident on the driver of the lorry are well merited and justified on the evidence on record. The factual findings recorded are squarely supported by reliable and convincing materials which found the favour of acceptance of the Judge in the tribunal below. It cannot be said that the appreciation of the materials by the tribunal below in this regard was either irregular or perverse so as to warrant our interference. The factual findings recorded are squarely supported by reliable and convincing materials which found the favour of acceptance of the Judge in the tribunal below. It cannot be said that the appreciation of the materials by the tribunal below in this regard was either irregular or perverse so as to warrant our interference. Consequently, the findings of the tribunal below in respect of the manner in which the accident occurred and the responsibility for the accident fixed on the driver of the lorry is in order and does not call for our interference. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant to the contrary are rejected. 7. So far as the quantum is concerned, it requires no serious efforts to come to the conclusion that the principles or the formula adopted by the tribunal below is contrary to the well-settled norms and principles laid down by more than one decision of the Apex Court as also the decisions of this Court In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. V.Trilok Chandra and others U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. V.Trilok Chandra and others U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. V.Trilok Chandra and others , (1996)2 L. W. 266 the Apex Court has held in categorical terms that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor though in coming to such a conclusion it varied the earlier decision of the very Apex Court holding that it cannot exceed 16. In the decision reported in Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1274 the Apex Court dealt with a case of an officer in Military service who has put in 7 years of service and died on account of an accident at the age of 27 years. He appears to have had bright prospects of further promotions with a salary at the time of death at Rs.1,545 per month. He appears to have had bright prospects of further promotions with a salary at the time of death at Rs.1,545 per month. In dealing with such a case and declaring the principles to be adopted in arriving at a national monthly loss of income to the family, the Apex Court held that the average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by having the actual gross income at the time of death to the maximum which the would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death and dividing that figure by 2 and arrive at the gross monthly income spread over for the entire future career. As a matter of fact, the Apex Court applied a multiplier of 15 for an officer of that age. If the monthly income taking into account the future prospects also is determined by applying and adopting the said guidelines and formula with reference to the present income of Rs.2,249 treating it to be Rs.2,250 for computation, the average would be Rs.3,375. We consider it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses. So deducted, it would come to Rs.2,532. If multiplied by 12, the annual sum would come to Rs.30,384. Though the. learned counsel for the appellant seriously and strenuously argued that the case on hand does not warrant the adoption of a multiplier of more than 13, we are of the view, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case that an adoption of multiplier of 15 would meet the requirements and ends of justice in this case even taking into account the age of the officer at the time of his death and the remaining years of his service. Thus, multiplied by 15 years, the total compensation on this account comes to Rs.4,55,760. The tribunal below has awarded on this account Rs.4,60,800. In view of the very slander margin of variation between these two, namely the one arrived at by the tribunal below and the one determined by us, we consider it not worthwhile to interfere with the same. As a matter of fact, so far as the other times awarded are concerned, they are found to be very reasonable and modest and there could be no serious contest in respect of such items of claim awarded. As a matter of fact, so far as the other times awarded are concerned, they are found to be very reasonable and modest and there could be no serious contest in respect of such items of claim awarded. Consequently, though we disapprove the manner in which the computation has, been made by the tribunal below and come to the conclusion mat the same is contrary to law, even applying the correct principles as laid down by the pronouncements of the Apex Court, no case has been made out for any drastic or substantial variation. Consequently, we reject the appeal and dismiss the same. 8. For the same reasons, the cross objection filed by claimant No. 1, 1st respondent in the appeal so far as the quantum of compensation to be awarded is concerned also fails and shall stand dismissed. 9. As for the contention on behalf of the first respondent/cross-objector challenging the award of half share of compensation in favour of respondents 4 and 5, the mother and father is concerned, we are of the view that the challenge is, to some extent, reasonable and requires to be countenanced at least in respect of the share countenanced in favour of the father also. The father cannot be said to be a heir at law particularly when class 1 heirs like the wife or mother are available. The materials on record make it clear that the father is a man of sufficient means having lands and substantial income. That apart, it is also made clear from the materials on record that the marriage between the deceased and the first respondent/claimant is a love marriage and they were living separately. Though out of love or affection some small amounts might have been sent by the deceased to his mother, that by itself is no ground for awarding an equal share to the mother in the case on hand, particularly when her husband has all the means to maintain himself as also to maintain his wife, the mother of the deceased. More so, in the context of the further claim, that there are also other children who are well to do to take care of the parents. More so, in the context of the further claim, that there are also other children who are well to do to take care of the parents. Keeping in view all these, we are of the view that the father need not be given any share at all as claimed and that the mother can be given some reasonable share, though not equal to that of the wife. 10. In view of the above, we are of the view that out of the total compensation, the claimant wife would be entitled to 2/3rd share of the 4th respondent in the court below, third respondent in this appeal would be entitled to only l/3rd share of the total compensation. In other respects, we are not interfering in the matter. The cross-objections are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.