Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2752 (MAD)

S. Kalaiselvi v. R. Karthikeyan

2017-08-21

J.NISHA BANU

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, dated 16.04.2012. environmental science 2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 25.04.2010 at about 12.45 mid day in Karur to Salem NH-7 bye pass road opposite to Hotel Dolphine, the driver of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN 47 J 7215 drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner from South to North and turned towards rightern side and dashed against the victim Senthil Kumar, who was proceedings in his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 47 M 4365 in the same direction, from behind the said lorry. As a result of which, the victim was fell down on the nearer Salem to Karur road. At that time, the driver of Qualiz car bearing registration No.KA 01 7 1062 drove the said Qualiz in a rash and negligent manner from North to South and dashed against the victim. Due to that, the victim sustained multiple grievous injuries in his body and died on the spot. The claimants filed an application in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur,, seeking compensation. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked sixteen documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. The respondents did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the respondents and also on appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which is insured with the second respondent and directed the the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.9,40,000/-, as compensation. 5. Against which, the appellants/claimants have filed this present appeal for enhancement. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal awarded a just and reasonable compensation and the same does not require interference and hence, this appeal is to be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal awarded a just and reasonable compensation and the same does not require interference and hence, this appeal is to be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph No.13 of the order of the Tribunal, wherein it has been held as follows: “The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.99 of 2010 examined P.W.2. P.W.2 would state that the deceased Sasikumar earned Rs.4200/- as on 30.10.2009. The claimant marked Ex.P.16 to P.20, Ex.P.16 is the wage slip. Ex.P.17 is the ledger copy. Ex.P.18 is the particulars showing the payment of bonus and Ex.P.19 is the Qu-form maintained by Shops and Establishments Act. That shows that the deceased Sasikumar worked in Ashok Financiers and earned Rs.4200/- as salary. The deceased had received Rs.7300/- as yearly bonus. Thus the deceased earned Rs.57,700/- per year as annual income. The deceased died as bachelor. Therefore, this Tribunal reduces 50% of the income of the deceased. As such the deceased would have contributed Rs.23,850/- for the welfare of the deceased. Since the deceased died as bachelor, the age of the mother is taken into consideration. The age of the mother as mentioned in the claim petition is 48 years. Therefore, multiplier 13 is taken into consideration. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.23,850 X 13 = Rs.3,10,050/- towards loss of income due to the death of Sasikumar. For Funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- is awarded. For the loss of love and affection, both petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,000/- each. Thus the claimants are totally entitled to Rs.3,40,050/- as compensation for the death of Sasikumar. 9. As per Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.18, this Court takes the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4200/-. Hence, his annual income would be Rs.50,400/- and by adding Rs.7300/- as annual bonus, his annual income would come to Rs.57,700/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses as he is a bachelor, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.28,850/-. By adding future prospects, 50% has to be added. Then, the annual income arrived at Rs. 43,275/-. As per settled principles of law, multiplier should be adopted based on the age of the deceased. By adding future prospects, 50% has to be added. Then, the annual income arrived at Rs. 43,275/-. As per settled principles of law, multiplier should be adopted based on the age of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased was 26 at the time of accident the correct multiplier of 17. By adopting correct multiplier of 17 (43,275 X 17) the loss of income would come to Rs.7,35,675/-. In all other heads, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal shall stand unaltered. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- each for the two claimants towards love and affection and therefore, the total compensation would be Rs.7,65,675/- rounded off to Rs.7,66,000/- The Tribunal granted 3,40,050/-, which was increased by this court to Rs.7,66,000/- The learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay additional court fee for enhanced amount. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, made in (District Judge), Karur, dated 16.04.2012, is hereby modified. The total compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,66,000/- from Rs.3,40,050/-. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, with proportionate interests and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal without filing formal permission petition. No Costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.6977 of 2017 is closed.