Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1009 (MAD)

Panchasaram Singh @ Sarangan v. Tmt. Girija

2012-02-24

S.VIMALA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased-Nanbai, was aged 37 years, eking out her livelihood by making wire basket and wire garland braider, met with an accident on 22.6.2002 and died. 2. The first claimant is the husband and the claimants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. They filed the petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. It is averred in the petition that at about 11.00 p.m. on the night hours of 22.6.2002, when the deceased was engaged in her work making baskets etc., in front of her house at Balammal Colony, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-01/F5353 (Maruthi Car), driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, due to which she died. The legal representatives of the deceased though quantified the loss and damages at Rs.24,66,500/-, it restricted it to Rs.7,00 0000/-. 3. The owner of the vehicle remained exparte and the Insurance Company contested the claim. The Insurance Company contested the claim on the following grounds: (a) That the deceased was a housewife and she was not doing any job outside. (b) The driver of the Maruthi Car did not have valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation; (c) The age, nature of job and the income of the deceased were all disputed; and (d) the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,86,000/-as compensation, by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and deducting a sum of Rs.250/- towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency has been assessed at Rs.750/-. Consequently, the annual dependency was estimated at Rs.9,000/-and adopting a multiplier of 16', the total compensation was quantified at Rs.1,44,000/-. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.1,86,000/- has been awarded. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and, therefore, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.1,86,000/- has been awarded. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and, therefore, the present appeal has been filed. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal erred in granting a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-towards loss of dependency (taking the monthly income at Rs.1,000/-). As evidence was let in through P.W.1 that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-per month, the Tribunal ought to have taken at least a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month on the basis that the deceased would have earned at least a sum of Rs.100/- per day which is a nominal sum that a person would get in the course of any day's work. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the deceased was the main bread winner in the family. Learned Counsel for the appellants also pointed out that the courts have recognised the value of the household services and quantified the services in terms of money and it is the settled principle to award compensation for loss of household services as well. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the deceased neither did household services nor did any handicraft work and that as they belong to moving population having no fixed place of abode, this Court cannot and need not quantify any money for the loss of household services. 9. In order to appreciate the contentions on both sides, it is necessary to look into the evidence of PW.1. The first claimant, was examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence has stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month and was maintaining the family. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that even as per the evidence of thefirst claimant as well as the other claimants, there is no need to pay any compensation, when the claimants are earning themselves and they are able to maintain themselves. This may be a good contention if it is a case for maintenance. But, in a case for compensation, the parties who have lost, must be placed, as far as possible, in the same position, in which they had originally been. In other words, what is lost must be compensated. This may be a good contention if it is a case for maintenance. But, in a case for compensation, the parties who have lost, must be placed, as far as possible, in the same position, in which they had originally been. In other words, what is lost must be compensated. The question is what is lost by the claimants. According to the claimants they have lost the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, the question is how much the deceased was earning and how much she was contributing to the family. The fact that the claimants were also earning may be taken into consideration as one of the factors, while deciding the quantum of money spent by the deceased towards the earning member of the family. No doubt, PW.1 in his evidence has stated that claimants 2 to 4 are also earning a sum of Rs.50/- to 100/-per day. What is evident from the admission is that unusually the claimant has spoken the truth, and has not suppressed anything to get more compensation. For having spoken the truth the claimants should not be penalised by placing a irrational interpretation. Just because they are also doing some job and are earning money, the Court cannot disallow the compensation, when they have really suffered loss. The way of life for a woman belonging to Narikurava community is not a bed of roses, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants. 10.1. No doubt, Narikuravas are normally nomadic people. Urban-rural divide is of no concern to this people, and they live under the tree shade, abandoned houses or practically under the sky. According to their distinct custom, they use to thrive on the money generated by them by selling trinkets, imitation jewellery and all the trivia enamored by freaks. It is also otherwise normal for them to engage their children to do acrobatics and to collect the money from the curious on-lookers at the end of each and every show. The painful life of people belonging to Narikurava's community, especially the woman folk, is presented in a picturised way as follows: “The women folk of the narikurava community are central to their life style. Though, the skimpy clad women used to traverse vast area for selling their wares through out the day, they strictly return to their camp for the night. Though, the skimpy clad women used to traverse vast area for selling their wares through out the day, they strictly return to their camp for the night. A Narikurava man will not permit or admit a woman who had stayed away for the night for any reason whatsoever into his household. Though, they used to sleep in a seemingly mixed fashion, monogamy is the honour of every Narikurava and any divergence from this norm would attract excommunication from a particular group.” ....The Korava woman used to call out, walking the streets of neighborhood in her swinging skirts, baby with sun-browned hair peering out of the sling on her back. Despite the life of dire poverty, there was always a gracious beauty to these women, going house to house selling small trinkets or resurfacing granite grindstones with their little iron awls and mallets, watched over with an eagle eye by the housewives, who mistrusted their reputation of 'light fingers'. Work done, they would haggle over the price, finally settling for whatever they could extract, milking whatever pity they could muster for their runny-nosed little ones. ......” Therefore, the contention that the deceased did not contribute anything towards maintenance of household cannot be accepted. In fact may bring up children like Kangaroo. 11. Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken the monthly dependency of the deceased at Rs.750/- per month. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, this calculation is extremely low. Taking the modest estimate for the household services rendered by the deceased and also having regard to the business in which the deceased was engaged (handicrafts works) and having regard to the evidence that the claimants were earning something to fill up at least half of their stomach, one can reasonably expect that the contribution of the deceased to the family would have been atleast Rs.2,500/-. This is further fortified by the evidence of P.W.1, which supports the case of the claimants on another front i.e., fixing the daily earnings of the deceased. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the other claimants were earning a sum of Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per day. Accepting the same analogy, it is equally possible the deceased would also have earned a similar sum as earned by the other claimants, which can easily be fixed at Rs.2,500/-per month. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the other claimants were earning a sum of Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per day. Accepting the same analogy, it is equally possible the deceased would also have earned a similar sum as earned by the other claimants, which can easily be fixed at Rs.2,500/-per month. It is settled law that when the claimants are more in number, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is unjustified. In this case, the number of dependants in the family is 5,and therefore the deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses would be reasonable. Therefore, taking the loss of financial support to the family at Rs.2,000/-per month the annual dependency would be Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/-x 12). As the deceased was aged 37 years, the multiplier of 15', is to be adopted. Thus the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,60,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 15). Further by awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the total compensation to be awarded is Rs.3,75,000/-. Thus the award amount is enhanced from Rs.1,86,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/-. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The fair and decretal order of the Tribunal is modified and the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-, instead of Rs. 1,86,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. It is represented that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire award amount of 1,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum and the claimants have already withdrawn the same. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company further submitted that there is a delay of two years in filing the appeal and, hence, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is to be reduced to 6% per annum from the date of appeal. In the above circumstances, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance of the amount of Rs.1,89,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of appeal, till the date of the deposit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their proportionate share. On such deposit being made, the claimants 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their proportionate share. In respect of fifth appellant/minor's share is concerned, the Tribunal has directed to invest the amount in a fixed deposit, in any one of the Nationalised Banks, until he attains majority. Accordingly, the proportionate share from the above modified award is also directed to be invested in a fixed deposit as has been ordered by the Tribunal. The father of the minor/5th appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, once in three months, directly from the bank. 15. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.