Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1915 (MAD)

J. Chitra v. R. Deenadhayalan

2019-07-23

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved over the quantum of compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, for the death of one Mr. J. Jayamanickam, aged about 35 years, a Civil Engineer, allegedly earning about Rs. 65,000/- per month, in the accident occurred on 25.12.2014. 2. Heard Mr. D. Durairaju, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Surana & Surana, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Mohanbabu, learned counsel appearing for M/s. M.B. Gopalan & Associates, learned counsel for Insurance Company. 3. The only question to be decided is with regard to quantum of compensation alone as the appeal has been preferred by the claimants and no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the finding regarding negligence is not questioned and therefore, it has attained finality. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would point out that the deceased was earning about Rs. 65,000/- per month as Civil Engineer and was employed in a private company. In this regard, he relied upon Ex. P.7/Copy of Engineering Diploma certificate of the deceased, Ex. P.8/Copy of Axis Bank statement of the deceased. Even though PW 1 adduced that the deceased was earning about a sum of Rs. 65,000/- per month, the Tribunal found that he was employed up to 31.03.2014 and thereafter, till the date of accident viz., 26.12.2014, there was no document to show that he was employed or earned Rs. 65,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal took a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. But the same is on the lower side. It is evidenced from the exhibits that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 65,000/- per month in M/s. P & G Constructions Private Limited. Considering the fact that at the time of accident, he was unemployed, this Court re-determines the monthly income at Rs. 15,000/-. Even though, the Tribunal has not added any amount towards future prospects, this Court adds 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident as proved by Ex. P.6/PAN card. Accordingly, the monthly income comes to Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 40% of 15,000/-). 5. Since the size of the family is 3, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses which was rightly done by the Tribunal. P.6/PAN card. Accordingly, the monthly income comes to Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 40% of 15,000/-). 5. Since the size of the family is 3, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses which was rightly done by the Tribunal. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly income comes to Rs. 14,000/- (Rs. 21,000/- (-) 1/3rd of Rs. 21,000/-). 6. According to the age of the deceased i.e., 38 years, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), right multiplier is "15". But the Tribunal has wrongly took the multiplier as "16". Therefore, this Court adopts the right multiplier "15". After applying correct multiplier, loss of contribution would be at Rs. 25,20,000/- (Rs. 14,000/- x 12 x 15). 7. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the 2nd and 3rd appellants/2nd and 3rd claimants. There is no amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and therefore, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded under this head. Likewise, there is no amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges and therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under this head. Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of contribution 25,20,000 Loss of consortium 40,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 Transportation charges 10,000 Total 27,00,000 8. Hence, the total compensation payable in this case is Rs. 27,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Out of the award amount, the 1st appellant/wife is entitled to Rs. 20,00,000/- and 2nd & 3rd appellants/parents are entitled to Rs. 3,50,000/-. 9. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the requisite court-fee, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, If the requisite court-fee is not paid by the claimants, the Tribunal is directed to deduct the requisite court fee from the compensation amount awarded to the claimants, as per the ratio fixed by the this Court and thereafter, transfer the remaining award amount to the claimants' account. 10. 10. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as per the modified award along with interest and costs, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share of the claimants along with interest and costs to the personal bank accounts of the appellants/claimants through RTGS within a period of one week thereon. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 13,50,000/- to Rs. 27,00,000/- with interest. No costs.