Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 500 (MAD)

State of Tamil Nadu v. Periya Chellappan

2017-02-24

N.SESHASAYEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : N. SESHASAYEE, J. 1. In a road accident that took place on 6.9.2000, one Chellamuthu, while walking along the road, was knocked down by a jeep belonging to the government (the appellant herein), consequent to which the victim died. Claiming compensation under various heads his legal representatives approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Bhavani, Erode District, and on appreciation of evidence before it, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 3,25,648 on various heads payable with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The details are as below: Heads Amount awarder by Tribunal Loss of income Rs. 2,19,648 Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000 Loss of consortium Rs. 50,000 Funeral expenses Rs.5,000 Transport Rs. 1,000 Total Rs. 3,25,648 Challenging the same, the owner of the vehicle, viz., the government has preferred this appeal. One of the essential arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the victim was a life convict having been convicted by the Sessions Court, Erode in S.C. No. 4 of 1998 and given the fact that he was a life convict for the remainder period, he could not have been presumed to have an opportunity to earn, and hence dependency cannot be calculated at the rate at which the Tribunal has assessed. The Tribunal has partly considered this aspect and it has proceeded to consider that if the deceased were to continue to be in prison he would have been there for 14 years at least and accordingly added 13 years to his age (which was 45 years at the time of accident) and then applied multiplier 8 appropriate to 58 years. In essence, the learned Special Government Pleader attacks this presumption of the Tribunal that the appellant would have been released on completion of 14 years, which in law the Claims Tribunal could not presume. 2. Countering the aforesaid argument of the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that deceased Chellamuthu had challenged his conviction in Crl. A. No. 447 of 1998 and it is during the pendency of this appeal before this court he died on 6.9.2000. He added that while under law his sentence of imprisonment has abated, it appears that the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of this court when it heard his appeal in Crl. A. No. 447 of 1998 and it is during the pendency of this appeal before this court he died on 6.9.2000. He added that while under law his sentence of imprisonment has abated, it appears that the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of this court when it heard his appeal in Crl. A. No. 447 of 1998, the appeal was heard and vide judgment dated 21.6.2005, the appellant was found not guilty. Learned counsel produced a typed set of papers along with a certified copy of judgment of the said case for comparison which established the truth of this submission. Now, it is the turn of the claimants' counsel to contend that the factual misconception as to the life sentence of the victim of the accident that the Tribunal has entertained was demonstrated to be misconceived and justice should be done to the claimants by reworking the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency by applying that multiplier which corresponds to his age when he died. He submitted that appellant was a coolie and he was presumed to have earned a notional income of Rs. 3,000 per month and relied on the dictum of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC). 3. The judgment in Crl. A. No. 447 of 1998 instantly settles two issues: (a) That the fundamental premise on which the appellant constructed its argument is not tenable any more; and (b) that compensation for loss of dependency must be reworked by applying multiplier appropriate to 45 years, the age at which the victim died in the accident involved in this case. 4. The Claims Tribunal has reckoned the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 3,000 per month. Out of this as per Sarla Verma dictum 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. This leaves the value of monthly family support that he provided to the family at Rs. 2,250. There is no dispute that he was 45 years when he died and hence another 30 per cent must be added to it towards future prospects. The appropriate multiplier being 14, compensation for loss of dependency is Rs. 4,91,400 (Rs. 2,925 x 12 x 14). 2,250. There is no dispute that he was 45 years when he died and hence another 30 per cent must be added to it towards future prospects. The appropriate multiplier being 14, compensation for loss of dependency is Rs. 4,91,400 (Rs. 2,925 x 12 x 14). On other heads this court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,97,400. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs. The compensation, however, is enhanced from Rs. 3,25,648 to Rs. 5,97,400 which the appellant shall deposit with interest at 9 per cent per annum, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, whereupon the respondents are free to receive the same. The appellants are directed to pay additional court-fee on the enhanced portion of the award.