Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 201 (MAD)

Kalaiselvi & Others v. Girish Deekshi & Another

2010-01-20

M.M.SUNDRESH, R.BANUMATHI

body2010
Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to them in M.C.O.P.No.782 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Namakkal, wife and minor sons of the deceased Balakrishnan have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. On 03.05.1999, the deceased Balakrishnan was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 28 B 2616 and his brother-in- law Govindaraj, who was travelling as a pillion rider from Namakkal to Vellalapatti on the Namakkal Trichy Main Road. While the deceased was nearing Krishnapuram, a van bearing Registration No.KA 03 A 2538 which was coming towards Namakkal in a high speed without blowing horn, hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased Balakrishnan and Govindaraj were thrown out of the motorcycle and the deceased Balakrishnan died on his way to hospital for treatment. A criminal case was also registered in Crime No.44 of 1999 for the offence under Section 304 A I.P.C. on the file of Thottiyam Police Station. Stating that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver, the claimants have filed a petition under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs.35 lakhs. The legal heirs of the another deceased by name Govindaraj have also filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.658 of 2002 and both the claim petitions were taken up together. 3. On the side of the appellants/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. Ex.R1 was marked on the side of the respondents. 4. Finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver, the Tribunal held that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased Balakrishnan at Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,65,000/-as under: Loss ofdependency..Rs.8,16,000.00 (Rs.48,000/- x 17) Transportation expenses, damages to clothing and Funeral expenses..Rs.4,000.00 Loss of consortium to the first petitioner..Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium to the minor appellants 2 and 6..Rs. 20,000.00 (Rs.10,000/- x 2) Loss of love and affection to appellants 3 to 5..Rs. 15,000.00 (Rs.5,000/- x 3) = = = = = = = = = Total..Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium to the minor appellants 2 and 6..Rs. 20,000.00 (Rs.10,000/- x 2) Loss of love and affection to appellants 3 to 5..Rs. 15,000.00 (Rs.5,000/- x 3) = = = = = = = = = Total..Rs. 8,70,000.00 = = = = = = = = = By arithmetical mistake, in the order of Tribunal, amount has been stated as Rs.8,65,000/-But the actual amount is Rs.8,70,000/-. 5. The Tribunal, observing that after meeting his personal expenses, the deceased Balakrishnan would have contributed Rs.4,000/-to the family and adopting the multiplier of 17, has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,65,000/-to be apportioned among the appellants/claimants as under: first appellant..Rs.4,00,000.00 second appellant..Rs.1,00,000.00 third appellant..Rs. 75,000.00 fourth appellant..Rs. 75,000.00 fifth appellant..Rs.1,15,000.00 sixth appellant..Rs.1,00,000.00 6. The manner of accident and the question of negligence are not in dispute. Only quantum is in dispute. Seeking enhancement ofcompensation, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal did not analyse Exs.P13 and P14 balance sheets submitted by the auditor of the deceased Balakrishnan in proper perspective and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- at least. He would further submit that having fixed the net monthly income at Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs.6,000/-towards personal expenses and finding that the deceased would have contributed only Rs.4,000/-to the family. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that as per the decisions of the Supreme Court,either 1/3rd or 1/4th deduction alone could be made for personal expenses and he seeks for enhancement of compensation. 7. Taking us through the judgment and the mode of calculation arrived at by the Tribunal, Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance companysubmitted that in the absence of any evidence to show that the business was being run by the deceased Balakrishnan successfully, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the monthly contribution at Rs.4,000/-. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there is no reason, warranting enhancement of compensation. 8. By a perusal of the lower Court records, judgment of the Tribunal and materials on record, we find that Exs.P13 and P14 are balance sheets relating to the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99; Exs.P15 and P16 are the income tax returns for the subsequent two financial years. Having regard to Exs.P13 and P14, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. The deceased had wife, aged parents and three minor children. Having regard to Exs.P13 and P14, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. The deceased had wife, aged parents and three minor children. When the deceased had large family to support, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs.6,000/- towards personal expenses, which is more than 50%. 9. Upon analysis of facts, evidence and materials on record, in our considered view, 1/3rd deduction (Rs.10,000/- x 1/3 = Rs.3,333/- rounded off to Rs.3,500/-) ought to have been made for personal expenses. Giving 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses i.e. Rs.3,500/-, monthly contribution of the deceased Balakrishnan to the family is fixed at Rs.6,500/-, thereby enhancing the contribution per month by Rs.2,500/- i.e. Rs.30,000/-per annum. Adopting the multiplier of 17, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.2,500/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.5,10,000/-) in addition tocompensation of Rs.8,70,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Insofar as interest is concerned, by perusal of records, we find that the claim petition was filed on 16.07.1999. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to interest payable at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-. 11. In the result, the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Namakkal in M.C.O.P.No.782 of 2002 is modified and this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.13,80,000/-(Rs.5,10,000/- + Rs.8,70,000/-). The enhanced compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-is payable to the appellants/claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the M.C.O.P. i.e. 16.07.1999, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-shall be apportioned amongst the appellants/claimants on pro-rata basis as ordered by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation payable to the minors shall be invested in a nationalised bank till they attain majority and their guardians are permitted to withdraw the periodical accrued interest on the minors deposit. No costs.