Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4411 (MAD)

Thangammal v. G. Sekar

2012-10-19

P.DEVADASS

body2012
Judgment :- The dear and near ones of deceased Ramasamy, dissatisfied with the grant of Rs.2,350/- alone as compensation, have directed this appeal. 2. On 29.03.2004, in a road accident, Ramasamy sustained injuries. He breathed his last on 10.05.2004. In this connection, his kith and kin claimed compensation. The Tribunal coming to the conclusion that his death was not proved due to the injury sustained by him in the road accident, granted Rs.1,050/-towards medical bills, Rs.1,000/- towards Transportation charges and Rs.300/-towards damage to clothes, thus, totally granted Rs.2,350/ to the first claimant, namely, the widow of Ramasamy. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ramasamy sustained head injury in the road accident. He was rushed to a private Hospital. Due to the mortal wounds, of course, he has to die after few months. It is a clear case that his death was due to the injury sustained by him in the road accident. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. But, the postmortem doctor reserved his final opinion on the cause of death. Thus, the claimants could not submit the final opinion before the Tribunal. Now, they have obtained the final opinion. They have produced it as additional evidence in M.P.No.1 of 2012. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that it is a fatal case, however, the Tribunal minimised it. The claimants are to be granted pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that some of the claimants are aged and are not dependents of the deceased. There is no proof for the income stated to have been earned by the deceased. 6. If the appellate forum feels that the additional evidence produced will enable it to pronounce Judgment in the appeal, the additional evidence could be received (see Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.). 7. In this case, before the Tribunal, the postmortem certificate was filed. But, the conclusion or opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased since has been reserved, it could not be produced before the Tribunal. The claimants could get it only subsequently. In the circumstances, the cause of death opined by the Autopsy Doctor becomes necessary to take a decision as to why Ramasamy died. So, we receive the final opinion of the postmortem doctor in evidence and mark it as Ex.P.8. 8. The accident was on 29.03.2004. The claimants could get it only subsequently. In the circumstances, the cause of death opined by the Autopsy Doctor becomes necessary to take a decision as to why Ramasamy died. So, we receive the final opinion of the postmortem doctor in evidence and mark it as Ex.P.8. 8. The accident was on 29.03.2004. In this, Ramasamy sustained serious head injury. Initially, he was treated in a Govt. Hospital. Then, he was treated in a Polyclinic in Salem. On 10.05.2004, Ramasamy died. Since the date of discharge from the hospital was not given, the Tribunal expressed its inability to pronounce as to his cause of death. 9. It is seen that after his death, the FIR was altered. In the FIR, it is stated that Ramasamy sustained injury on 29.03.2004, after initial treatment, he was sent to house and he died on 10.05.2004. The Autopsy Doctor's Certificate mentions the multiple injuries found on the dead body of Ramasamy. The postmortem doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia due to old head injury. 10. Septicemia has taken away his life. He had septicemia because of head injury. He had head injury because of road accident. So, his death has close connection with the injury sustained by him in the accident. So, the cause and effect are connected. The cause is road accident and the effect is his death. Thus, we have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that Ramasamy breathed his last only because of the injury sustained by him in the road accident. 11. Now, we shall see the quantum aspect. The deceased was then 60 years old. He is a villager. He had maintained good physique. 12. For a person, in the age group of 60, as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in SMT.SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)], the multiplier is 9'. 13. In the petition, it is pleaded that Ramasamy did goat business and earned Rs.5,000/- p.m. That has also been reiterated by his widow/P.W.1 in her evidence. 14. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that no proof for such business income has been produced. 15. In view of the nature of the business pleaded, proof will be rare, if proof is produced, it will be prone to doubt. In assessing damages, no mathematical precision could be achieved. 14. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that no proof for such business income has been produced. 15. In view of the nature of the business pleaded, proof will be rare, if proof is produced, it will be prone to doubt. In assessing damages, no mathematical precision could be achieved. There is no golden scale to weigh it. In this regard, our common experience and knowledge can have a say. Little guessing cannot be prohibited. But, it should not be a wildguess. 16. In the facts and circumstances and the then prevailing circumstances, he would have earned a minimum of Rs.4,000/-p.m. Deducting 1/3 towards his pleasure and other expenses, his monthly contribution to the family would have been Rs.3,000/-. Calculating on the above lines, the loss of dependency would be Rs.3,24,000/-(Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 9). Towards cremation expenses, Rs.5,000/-is awarded. The first claimant is the widow of the deceased. She lost the companionship of her husband. For such a loss, she is awarded Rs.15,000/-. Claimants 2 to 6, who are kith and kin of the deceased are awarded Rs.10,000/-each for loss of love and affection of the deceased. In other respects, we are not interfering with the award of the Tribunal. 17. The award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- 18. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,96,350/-together with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit. Appellants 2 to 6 shall be allotted Rs.10,000/-each with corresponding interest. The entire balance amount shall be allotted to the first appellant. On such deposit, they are permitted to withdraw their respective share of amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. M.P.No.1 of 2012 is allowed. No costs.