Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 804 (MAD)

Gnanam Santhanam v. Sathyalakshmi Enterprises

2004-06-24

K.GOVINDARAJAN, T.V.MASILAMANI

body2004
Judgment :- K. GOVINDARAJAN, J. 1. The claimants not satisfied with the quantum fixed by the tribunal filed the above petition claiming enhanced compensation. The great musician in Carnatic called Sri Maharajapuram Santhanam died in the accident held on 24.6.1992. On the date of accident, he was 67 years old. It is stated in the petition that he was on the peak period in the field of Carnatic music at the time of accident. The wife and children of the said deceased filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs. The tribunal taking into consideration of Ex. P7. the income tax report, fixed the net income at Rs. 1,72,648 and after deducting 1/3rd arrived at Rs. 7,10,600/= taking six years as multiplier. Not satisfied with the amount awarded, the above appeal is tiled. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tribunal is not correct in taking into consideration of the income mentioned in Ex. P7 alone without considering the scope for increase in his income as the deceased was in peak period in the field. He has also stated that inspite of the evidence available on record, the tribunal has fixed the multiplier only at 6 years, which should be atleast 13 years. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the tribunal has arrived at the net income only on the basis of the income tax return, the question of increasing the income as suggested by the learned senior counsel does not arise. Even with respect to the multiplier adopted by the tribunal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the absence of any evidence that the deceased would have lived till the age of 80, the tribunal is correct adopting the multiplier of 6. 4. There is no dispute about the accident and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation. The dispute is only with respect to the quantum of compensation as alleged. The tribunal relied on Ex. P7 to fix the net income of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased is a great and well known musician among Carnatic Music lovers and he was in the peak in the field. According to Ex. P7, the professional income is mentioned as Rs. 4,60,244/-. Out of the said income, a sum of Rs. P7 to fix the net income of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased is a great and well known musician among Carnatic Music lovers and he was in the peak in the field. According to Ex. P7, the professional income is mentioned as Rs. 4,60,244/-. Out of the said income, a sum of Rs. 2,87,596/= was spent by the deceased towards remuneration of the side artist, driver and other expenses and amount paid to the Vision Research Foundation. The tribunal has taken a sum of Rs. 1,72,648/- alone as his net income. From the return, we are able to see the deceased was having other source of income of Rs. 28,345/= and 1,28,734/=. The tribunal has not taken into consideration the said two amounts as income of the deceased and no reason also is given to ignore the same. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed about the said amount to be added towards the deceaseds income. It is not disputed that the said return does not reflect the correct income of the deceased. As a matter of fact, the tribunal also has taken into consideration of the said Ex. P7 for the purpose of arriving at the net income of the deceased. If the above said two amounts, namely, Rs. 28,345/= and Rs. 1,28,734/= are taken into consideration along with the net income from the profession, namely, Rs. 1,72,648/=, the total income would be Rs. 3,29,727/=. So the tribunal is not correct in fixing the nett income at Rs. 1,72,648/=. If 1/3rd is deducted, the contribution to the family consists of wife and three children has to be taken as Rs. 2,20,000/= as a round figure. 5. With respect to the multiplier, the tribunal has adopted 6 years. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 67 years on the date of death. An eminent musician Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer was examined as P.W. 6. He deposed that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was on peak in the field of music. The said Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer was aged about 88 years on the date of giving deposition and he is also in the field. In the petition, reference has been made with Tmt. M.S. Subbulakshmi, She was about 75 years on the date of petition and she is still in the field with great respect. The said Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer was aged about 88 years on the date of giving deposition and he is also in the field. In the petition, reference has been made with Tmt. M.S. Subbulakshmi, She was about 75 years on the date of petition and she is still in the field with great respect. Reference has also been made to other musicians, who can hold the field effectively till the age of 85 to 90 years. Taking into consideration of the fact and also the longevity of life of a person in the recent days, the multiplier can easily be adopted as 9 to the deceased. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the father of the deceased died at the age of 74 years, the same cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing the age of the deceased as in the age of 67, as he was hale and healthy and he is able to sing with all fame. So, we are of the considered opinion that the multiplier of 9 years can easily be adopted. If such multiplier is adopted, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 19,80,000/=. They are also entitled to other amounts awarded by the tribunal about which there is no dispute raised before us. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/= towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the children. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 20 lakshs with interest at 9% on enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment. 6. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed. No costs.