Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 926
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Pushpakumar & Others
CMA.109 of 2009
Decided on: 02-04-2009
The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation for motor accident claims, including the calculation of pecuniary benefits, loss of love and affection, and the adjustment of interest rates.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims - Section 163-A of M.V. Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proper multiplier for calculating compensation. It highlighted the interpretation of the age brackets and multipliers for determining pecuniary benefits and loss of love and affection. The court also addressed the appropriate compensation for different types of injuries and the adjustment of total compensation. The judgment emphasized the modification of interest rates based on a previous apex court decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The case involved a car-lorry accident resulting in deaths and injuries. Individual claims were filed for compensation, and the court analyzed the evidence and determined the appropriate compensation for each claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's calculation of compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act needed modification, particularly in determining the proper multiplier for age brackets and adjusting compensation for different types of injuries. The court also addressed the interest rates and allowed the appeals with modifications.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the calculation of compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, including the proper multiplier for age brackets, adjustment of total compensation, and modification of interest rates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, focusing on the determination of pecuniary benefits, loss of love and affection, and the appropriate compensation for different types of injuries. The court also considered a previous apex court decision in modifying the interest rates.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals with modifications, reducing the total compensation amounts and adjusting the interest rates. The claimants were permitted to withdraw the modified compensation amounts as per the court's order, and no costs were awarded.
Common Judgment:
1. Five appeals have been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 14. 2008 passed in MCOP Nos. 3318 to 3322 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2. On 15. 2002 one Santhanam was driving a car bearing Registration No. TMV 6366 from Thambaram to Paraniputhur along with four other passengers. A lorry insured with the appellant driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car and caused serious damages. In that accident, the driver Santhanam and another occupant lady by name Thilagavathy died. Other passengers viz., Neelamegam, Mani, Arivoli and Malliga suffered injuries. The injured persons were treated at Ramachandra Medical College Hospital. Individual claims were filed by the dependents of the deceased and by the injured claimants. All the claims were taken up and disposed of in a common award by the Tribunal.
3. In support of the individual claims, the following witnesses were examined. Pushpakumar, son of the deceased Santhanam and Thilagavathy, the husband and wife, was examined as P.W.1. Malliga, injured claimant was examined as P.W.2. Ravichandran, father of injured claimant minor Arivoli was examined as P.W.3. Neelamegam another injured claimant was examined as P.W.4. Dr. Saichandran and Dr. Kalkura were examined as P.Ws. 5 and 6. Documents Exs. P1 to P18 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant insurance company/ second respondent before the Tribunal.
4. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, no plea is taken with regard to liability to compensate the claimants.
5. CMA No.109 of 2009 O.P.No. 3318 of 2002:-
This case relates to a claim for compensation on the death of Santhanam. He said to be a contractor cum agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-p.m. but no proof of document has been filed. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. As per Ex.P3, post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed as 55 years. The Tribunal, adopting 11 multiplier and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 11=Rs.5,28,000/- -1/3= Rs.3,52,000/-). In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Table
6. No. 111 of 2009 - OP No. 3320 of 2002
The deceased in this case is Thilagavathy, wife of Santhanam, the person who drove the car. She was aged about 51 years survived by a son aged 31 years and two daughters as in the previous case. It is the plea of the claimants that the deceased was a pawn broker and milk vendor. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- as against Rs.4,000/-claimed. As per Ex.P4, post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed as 51 years and by adopting 11 multiplier, the total loss of pecuniary benefits was fixed at Rs.3,30,000/-and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of pecuniary benefits was determined in a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.2,500/- x 12 x 11= Rs.3,30,000/- - Rs. 1,10,000/-= Rs.2,20,000/-) In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
Table
7. In both the cases, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side, since the son and two daughters are majors and there is no material to show that they are totally dependents on the deceased and further there is no material proof as to whether the two daughters are married or unmarried. It is contended that the amount of Rs.50,000/-granted towards loss of love and affection is also on the higher side.
8. Considering the age of the two dau
