Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3282 (MAD)

A. Palanisamy v. R. Murugesan & Others

2009-08-21

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2009
Judgment :- The appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the award of Rs.1, 01,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3, 50,000/-. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent no one appeared on behalf of the respondent and hence this court decides to dispose the case on merits with available materials on record. 2. The case of the claimant was that his father Arumugam was riding a by-cycle on 5. 1991, which was hit by a car driven by the first respondent in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident his father Arumugam sustained injuries and died. Hence the claimant filed the claim petition to the tune of Rs.3, 50,000/- and the same was resisted by the third respondent-Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence found that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.1, 01,000/- towards compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant, being the only son, who lost his mother even before the death of his father in the accident, filed the claim petition. In the absence of both father and mother he was left like a orphan. Hence the claimant should be awarded more amount. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3, 500/-per month, whereas the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2000/- per month. He also assailed the award contending that 2/3 of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and only a sum of Rs.800/- per month out of Rs.2000/-was taken as monthly contribution to the family. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in further deducting 1/3 after after the deduction of 2/3 from the monthly income of the deceased. 5. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/-and after deducting 2/3 it took only Rs.800/-as monthly contribution to the family. The annual contribution was arrived as Rs.800 X 12= Rs.9600/-. The loss of income is Rs.96, 000/- X 15 multiplier = Rs.1, 44,000/-. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3 towards unexpected expenses and uncertainty of life. After deducting 1/3 from Rs.1, 44,000/- only a sum of Rs.96, 000/- was awarded towards loss of income. 6. The annual contribution was arrived as Rs.800 X 12= Rs.9600/-. The loss of income is Rs.96, 000/- X 15 multiplier = Rs.1, 44,000/-. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3 towards unexpected expenses and uncertainty of life. After deducting 1/3 from Rs.1, 44,000/- only a sum of Rs.96, 000/- was awarded towards loss of income. 6. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal is patently illegal. When monthly income was fixed at Rs.2000/- per month, only 1/3 should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and if 1/3 is deducted from Rs.2000/-, the monthly contribution of the deceased would be Rs.1333/- and the annual contribution would be Rs.1333 X 12 = 15996/-. The proper multiplier to be adopted is 15 and the loss of income should be Rs.15996 X 15 = 2, 39,940/-. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.500/- towards transportation and the same was granted by the Tribunal. Towards damage to cloth and property a sum of Rs.1500/- was sought and the same was declined by the Tribunal. However taking into consideration the factor that the cloth and properties would have damaged at the time of accident, a sum of Rs.1000/-is awarded by this court. Though a sum of Rs.5000/- was sought for towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal declined to give the same. The approach of the Tribunal is not correct. For funeral expenses the claimant has to be paid a sum of Rs.2500/- 7. The Tribunal while dealing with the contention regarding pain and suffering and mental agony, appreciated the oral evidence and Ex.P.8 that the claimant could not have concentrated on his education after the death of his father in the accident and as a result he could not pass IX Standard and awarded a sum of Rs.4500/-. Though a sum of Rs.18000/- was sought for towards loss of love and affection, no amount was given. The Tribunal has been constituted specially for dealing with accident claims. Considering the beneficiary provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the matter has to be looked into with humane approach. However the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the intention of the legislature in proper perspective and did not award any amount towards loss of love and affection. The claimant lost his mother even before the death of his father in the accident. However the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the intention of the legislature in proper perspective and did not award any amount towards loss of love and affection. The claimant lost his mother even before the death of his father in the accident. Subsequent to the accident he lost his father also who could take care on him and that should be the primary consideration for the Tribunal to award compensation towards love and affection. Only the father and the mother of the children would shower love and affection. Even other relatives show love and affection, cannot be equated to the love and affection of the parents. Hence a sum of Rs.25, 000/- has to be granted towards loss of love and affection of the parents. The Tribunal rightly granted 12% interest for the compensation and the same is confirmed. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award of Rs.1,01,000/- is enhanced in the following manner: 1. Towards loss of income Rs. 2,39,940.00 2. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,500.00 3. Towards transportation Rs. 500.00 3. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 4,500.00 4. Towards Damage to cloth and properties Rs. 1,000.00 6. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000.00 Total Rs.2,73,440.00 9. The appeal is partly allowed. However there will be no order as to costs. The third respondent is directed to deposit the entire amount before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the tribunal is directed to pay the entire amount to the appellant/claimant within one week thereafter.