Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1394 (MAD)

Narayanasamy & Another v. D. Muniappan & Others

2008-04-25

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2008
Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the order of the Tribunal in passing an award for a sum of Rs.1 lakh against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, for enhancement of the compensation. 2. On 28. 1995 at 06.30 a.m., when the deceased was riding his bicycle near Panchayat Union School in Melpunjai village, the lorry belonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TNE 5792 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent, suddenly turned near Panchayat Union School and dashed against the deceased bicycle and committed the accident, thereby the deceased died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was only 20 years old and was hale and healthy. The deceased was very active and hard worker to develop his family by doing mason work. The deceased was the only son for his family. He came to the Pachal village for the building construction work taken up by him. He has taken many sub contract works in Tirupattur in his native place. He was earning more than Rs.2000/- per month and was maintaining his family. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased claimed Rs.2,50,000/-as compensation. The respondent Corporation had stated that the accident had occurred only due to the carelessness of the deceased and not due to the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, framed the following issue : What is the amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? 3. The Tribunal had after a full-fledged enquiry had passed an award for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Against the said grant of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 4. For convenience sake, the rank of the parties before the lower Court is being used in this judgment also. 5. The claimants have filed their claim petition for grant of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the loss of their beloved son in a motor accident which happened on 28. 1994 at Melpunjai village and the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the second respondent by the first respondent which dashed against him and due to the accident, the son of the claimants namely, Kumaresan aged about 20 years died on the spot. 1994 at Melpunjai village and the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the second respondent by the first respondent which dashed against him and due to the accident, the son of the claimants namely, Kumaresan aged about 20 years died on the spot. The Tribunal had examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and admitted Exs.P1 to P8 on the side of the claimants and had awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 12% per annum against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit in his argument that the Tribunal had committed an error in calculating the compensation at Rs.1,70,000/- and thereafter reduced the sum to Rs.98,000/-without any reason and had ordered only a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and had awarded only Rs.1 lakh with 12% interest. The reason was not disclosed by the Tribunal for reducing the calculation of Rs.1,70,000/- into Rs.98,000/-, which is ex-facie incorrect. He had also drawn the attention of the Court that the Tribunal had not gone into the question of awarding compensation for love and affection for the parents for the loss of their young son. Therefore, the compensation awarded is very meagre sum and it has to be enhanced to a justifiable level. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent in her argument would contend that the method of calculation, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.1,70,000/-, was by adopting a wrong multiplier at 17 in considering the age of the deceased person. The correct position of law is that the age of the dependent has to be considered for fixing the multiplier for the purpose of calculating the compensation for the deceased and accordingly, the age of the parent namely, the mother should have been used for fixing the multiplier. Therefore, the correct multiplier according to the age of the mother at 40 is only 13%. The notional income should have been utilized, when there is no proof of the income of the deceased and accordingly, at best, a sum of Rs.1500/-alone can be calculated and the Tribunal is correct in arriving the calculation to Rs.98,000/-, considering the status, education and other employment and the environment of the deceased person. Therefore, the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal need not be revised and the appeal has to be dismissed. 8. Therefore, the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal need not be revised and the appeal has to be dismissed. 8. Considering the arguments advanced by both sides and on a perusal of the records, I could see that the deceased was the only son of the claimants and he died in the road accident at the age of 20. The age of the second petitioner mother is 40 at the time of the death of their only son. Even though the evidence has been adduced that he was earning a sum of Rs.2500/- as Lorry Cleaner, there was no other documentary evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we could only take the notional income as suggested in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to Rs.1500/-per month. If we take at Rs.1500/- per month, an expenditure towards the maintenance of the deceased should be reduced at one third of the sum and accordingly, Rs.1,000/-per month is the monthly contribution to the claimants from the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual contribution should be i.e. Rs.12,000/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent, we could see that the multiplier should have been fixed at 13 as per Second Schedule on the basis of the age of the second petitioner at 40. Therefore, the multiplier which should have been used by the Tribunal is 13 and when we use that the multiplier and calculated the compensation, it has come as Rs.1,56,000/-. The Tribunal had reduced nearly half of the compensation calculated by it in lieu of the environment, status, education and employment, that deduction is without any basis. Therefore, the total compensation as calculated at Rs.1,56,000/- by using 13 as multiplier should have been awarded to the claimants. Moreover, a sum of Rs.10,000/-should have been awarded for each of the claimants towards loss of love and affection and on that score, a sum of Rs.20,000/-has to be awarded for the loss of love and affection to the death of their only son of the claimants. The claimants should have sustained funeral expenses and on that score, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,000/-. On an overall calculation, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-towards compensation. For which, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh only. The claimants should have sustained funeral expenses and on that score, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,000/-. On an overall calculation, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-towards compensation. For which, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh only. Therefore, this Court finds that the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.80,000/-, which is to be paid by the third respondent with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded as enhanced compensation, which is to be paid by the third respondent with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs.