Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2204
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & P. DEVADASS, JJ.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Regional Manager & Another
Versus
S. Muniandi Santha (died) & Others
C.M.A.(MD).No. 670 of 2009 & M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 of 2009, 1 of 2011 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 27-06-2013
For the Appellants :G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 & 3, S. Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate, R4, No Appearance.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 171 – Motor accident claim - Insurer of vehicle involved in a road accident – Claim of compensation - Counsel for appellant contended that even P.W.2 admits that then her deceased husband was not working however Singapore Dollars has been taken as his monthly income by Tribunal - Deceased lived in Singapore where cost of living is very high - However towards pleasure and other expenses of deceased Tribunal deducted from his income - Singapore is one of countries where personal taxation is very high - Salary means actual salary that is less income tax - In this respect Counsel for appellant cited – However no amount towards income tax has been deducted from said income - Counsel also contended that Tribunal took multiplier - Deceased earned in a foreign country in foreign currency and in view of disparity in economic situation in Singapore and in India a lesser multiplier is required to be adopted - In this respect Counsel cited and an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court - Counsel also contended that in facts and circumstances of case awarding of interest per annum is excessive - In this respect Counsel – Held, Tribunal awarded interest per annum on award amount - In Honble Apex Court reduced rate of interest It is pertinent to note that in Tribunal adopted multiplier - In court case court have reduced multiplier that has resulted in less compensation amount - In Honble Apex Court held - Now court have to fix up rate of interest - Section 171 of MV Act empowers Tribunal to direct that in addition to amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than date of making claim as may be specified in this behalf – Earlier was found to be reasonable rate of simple interest - With a change in economy and policy of Reserve Bank of India interest rate has been lowered - Nationalised banks are now granting interest at rate on fixed deposits for one year – Court direct that compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at rate from date of claim made by appellants - Though an argument was advanced namely that rate of interest is excessive considering fact that accident occurred and Tribunal disposed of claim petitions court are of view that interest at rate for award amount is reasonable and acceptable and it requires no enhancement or reduction - In case accident took place - Claim petition was filed - After several years Tribunal awarded them compensation - In facts and circumstances interest per annum awarded by Tribunal is reasonable and acceptable - Appeal is allowed
P. Devadass, J.
The appeal:
1. In this appeal, the insurer of the vehicle involved in a road accident, questions the quantum of compensation awarded.
Facts in brief:
2. On 11.01.1999, Shanmugam and certain others have travelled in the van, belonging to the fourth respondent, which has been insured with the first appellant. On the Madurai-Tirunelveli National Highway, near Thalaiyuthu, accident took place. In this, Thuraisingam, Manoharan and Anbalagan sustained injuries, while Shanmugam lost his life. In this appeal, we are concerned with M.C.O.P.No.659 of 2001, filed by the dependants of the deceased.
Award amount:
3. On 18.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded Rs.52,56,440/- with 9% interest per annum. Its break-up figures are as under:
Contention: Insurer
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even P.W.2 admits that then her deceased husband was not working, however, 1700 Singapore Dollars has been taken as his monthly income by the Tribunal. The deceased lived in Singapore, where cost of living is very high. However, towards pleasure and other expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal deducted only 1/3 from his income. Singapore is one of the countries where personal taxation is very high. Salary means actual salary, that is less income tax. In this respect, the learned Counsel for the appellant cited ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. RAM PRASAD VARMA AND OTHERS [2009 (2) SCC 712]; SHYAMWATI SHARMA AND OTHERS vs. KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS, [2010 ACJ 1968]; SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (6) SCC 121]. However, no amount towards income tax has been deducted from the said income. The learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal took the multiplier 15'. The deceased earned in a foreign country in foreign currency and in view of the disparity in economic situation in Singapore and in India a lesser multiplier is required to be adopted. In this respect, the learned Counsel cited DR.P.SHANMUGHARAJ AND OTHERS vs. SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS, [2005-3-L.W. 375] and an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. S.MALARVIZHI, [C.M.A.No.2623 of 2009, dated 06.06.2013].The learned Counsel also contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding of 9% interest per annum is excessive. In this respect, the learned Counsel cited KAUSHNUMA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS [2001 (2) SCC 9]; TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., vs. S.RAJAPRIYA AND OTHERS [2005 (1) TN MAC 341 (SC)].
Contention : Claimants
5. The learned Counsel for the claimants contended that considering the relevant aspects, such as age of the deceased, income after allowable deductions, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation. The learned counsel also contended that in choosing appropriate multiplier, there cannot be different yardstick as between an Indian and a foreigner/non-resident Indian, killed in a road accident. Principles of determination of compensation is same for both. Switching over from one employer to another, where pay is more is not uncommon abroad. Rarely they will keep themselves idle, because without a job it is very difficult to thrive abroad. In these circumstances, the Tribunal had taken his last known income as yardstick to compute loss of dependency. The learned counsel also contended that there will be increase in the earnings of the deceased and thus certain percentage of income has to be added for loss of future prospects. However, in this case, the Tribunal had overlooked this. In this respect, the learned Counsel cited SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (6) SCC 121]; SANTOSH DEVI vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS [2012 (6) SCC 421]; RESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS vs. MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER [2013 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC)]; RAJESH AND OTHERS vs. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS. The learned Counsel also contended that only a reasonable rate of interest has been a
