Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1442 (MAD)

P. Vijayakumar v. Shanmugam & Another

2008-04-29

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2008
Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court) Chennai, made in M.C.O.P. No: 5632 of 1991 dated 27.02.2002 by the claimant for enhancement of compensation for an award of Rs.3,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. 2. The Tribunal had examined two witnesses on the side of the claimant and admitted exhibits P.1 to P.9. After a full fledged enquiry the Tribunal had come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. The claimant, who is the appellant herein, had preferred this appeal against the said order, for enhancement of compensation. The respondent did not prefer any separate appeal nor filed a cross objection in this appeal and, therefore, the scope for consideration in this appeal is only as to whether the claimant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation as claimed by him. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 26.07.1999 at 9.00 a.m. in Kerala State Chittoor to Tandamangalam Main Road when the deceased was riding in her two wheeler with her son to drop him at the school, the motor vehicle with registration No: KMM 6883 belonging to the 1st respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased and her son were traveling and thereby caused serious injuries on both of them and they died due to the said injuries. The claimant is the husband of the deceased and the father of the boy who also died in the accident. The claimant had stated that his wife was working as a teacher at Vijayamadha Convent, Ambattupalayam, Chittoor, and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. It is also stated that she was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit in his argument that the Tribunal had considered the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.2,700/-per month on the basis of Ex.P.6 which mentioned the salary of the deceased at Rs.2,770/-. Apart from that the Tribunal had deducted a sum of Rs.300/- towards deduction in the office and had fixed the salary at Rs.2,400/- and calculated the contribution at Rs1,600/-, after deducting one third of the said salary towards her personal use. Apart from that the Tribunal had deducted a sum of Rs.300/- towards deduction in the office and had fixed the salary at Rs.2,400/- and calculated the contribution at Rs1,600/-, after deducting one third of the said salary towards her personal use. The Tribunal did not give any reason for deducting Rs.300/- from the salary. There is no evidence to that effect. Ex.P.6 does not also reflect any deduction in the salary. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.2,770/-as the monthly salary received by the deceased at the time of the accident. 5. The Tribunal had ascertained the age of the deceased at 38 on the basis of the evidence and had fixed the multiplier at 15 and calculated the compensation payable to the loss of the deceased to the claimant at a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that the said fixation of multiplier at 15 is contrary to the judgment of our Supreme Court reported in 2007 A.C.J. 1076 (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Sripriya and others) in which a driver of the State Transport Corporation who was aged about 37 years was given a multiplier of 12 by the Apex Court and therefore, in this case also the same multiplier should be used. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ 1972 (Kanhaiyalal Kataria and others vs. Mukul Chaturvedi and others), would submit in his argument that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier 16 as per the guidelines of the Second Schedule of The Motor Vehicles Act. However, it had taken only 15 as the multiplier. 6. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is on a different question of facts pertaining to a driver of a transport corporation. However, it had taken only 15 as the multiplier. 6. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is on a different question of facts pertaining to a driver of a transport corporation. But in this case, the teacher who was aged about 38 years was to be awarded a compensation for the loss of her life and the judgment of our Supreme Court reported in 2007 A.C.J. 1972, cited supra, is partly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given a direction to follow the multiplier suggested in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for the deceased who is aged about 32 years to apply 17 as multiplier and, therefore, the Tribunal even though obliged to take 16 as multiplier as per the Second Schedule has taken 15 as the multiplier and had calculated the compensation. 7. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by either side, this Court could see that the deceased woman is the wife of the claimant and that she was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. According to he Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, such age group of the deceased would attract 16 as multiplier. As per the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, reported in 2007 A.C.J. 1972, cited supra, the principle of assessment has been clearly adopted to follow the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant passage runs as follows :- “3. ....... We are not going into any other aspect except the question of proper multiplier for computation of compensation. In out opinion, by taking the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation deserves to be increased. The compensation amount may be suitable recomputed by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier 17.” Similarly, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 A.C.J. 1076 as cited by the learned counsel for the respondent would discuss about the age of the dependants and the multiplier should have been fixed in such a way as to the age of the dependant if their age is higher than that of the deceased person. The relevant passage runs as follows:- “8. The relevant passage runs as follows:- “8. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. “ 8. On a careful perusal of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, we have to fix the multiplier as per the age of the deceased as well as the dependants. On that basis only, the Hon’ble Apex Court had reduced the multiplier from 17 to 12 in the aforesaid judgments. So far as this case is concerned, the dependant was said to have been aged about 35 on the date of the accident as seen from the claim petition whereas his age was given as 43 on the date of his deposition i.e. on 112. 2001. Therefore, he should have been 41 on the date of the accident. The age of the deceased was 38 years on the date of the accident. According to the judgment of the Apex Court, the age of the dependant should have been taken into consideration for ascertaining the multiplier and if so taken, as per the Second Schedule, the multiplier should have been 15. Therefore, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal even without any reason is correct and the same is applicable for calculating the compensation. When we calculate the compensation with the help of the monthly salary at Rs.2,770/-, after deducing one third of the sum from the salary towards personal expenses, when we calculate the annual income it would be a sum of Rs.33,240/- and adopt 15 as multiplier, we can see that the total compensation would be around Rs.3,32,400/-whereas the Tribunal had arrived at a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- which is not correct. The deceased had left behind her the claimant, her husband, who is aged 41 and the claimant should have lost his marital life. The deceased had left behind her the claimant, her husband, who is aged 41 and the claimant should have lost his marital life. For such a loss, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.500/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as special damages to the claimant which are very meager. While considering awarding compensation under both the heads, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a single compensation of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. In the other respects namely the amount awarded under the head funeral expenses at a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is reasonable. Therefore, totally a sum of Rs.3,49,400/- would have been the appropriate compensation. Thus, we could see that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.49,400/- towards enhanced compensation. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed by enhancing the compensation by a sum of Rs.49,400/-. The claimant is also entitled for interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The time for deposit of the enhanced compensation along with interest would be four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.