Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others - Appellant
Versus
Yasoda & Others - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 1249 of 2016, Cross. Obj No. 41 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 11796 of 2016
Decided On : 08-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Bhaskaran
For the Respondents: K. Suriyanarayanan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of legal precedents to determine the appropriate multiplier and the basis for fixing the compensation in motor accident claims cases.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Compensation Calculation - Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, Santhosh Devi v. National Insurance Co., Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, Munna Lal and and Ors., v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347
Fact of the Case:
The appeal and cross objection were filed against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai in a case involving the death of a 26-year-old personal assistant to an MLA in a road accident. The deceased's parents were the claimants seeking compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and determined the compensation for loss of dependency, love and affection, mental agony, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. The court modified the Tribunal's award and allowed the appeal and cross objection partly, enhancing the compensation by Rs.45,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Issues: The main issues were the calculation of future prospects, fixing the multiplier, and determining the deceased's income for compensation purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered legal precedents such as Sarla Verma v. DTC, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, Santhosh Devi v. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and Munna Lal and and Ors., v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. to determine the appropriate multiplier and the basis for fixing the compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and cross objection, modifying the Tribunal's award and enhancing the compensation by Rs.45,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
P. Kalaiyarasan, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are directed against the Award, dated 17.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2012. Insurance company filed the appeal challenging the quantum and Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the Award.
2. The parents of the deceased are claimants. R. Govarthanam, while riding the two wheeler at 7 p.m. on 28.09.2006 on the National Highways near Rajakulam, lorry bearing Registration No. TN 09 E 1211 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the appellant was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and hit against the victim and he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The deceased was aged 26 years and working as Personal Assistant to MLA and his earning was Rs.15,000/- p.m. He is unmarried and the respondents 1 and 2, being parents are his dependants.
3. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence of both sides, awarded compensation (i) towards loss of dependency - Rs.14,85,000/-; (ii) towards loss of love and affection, mental agony, loss of estate and loss of expectancy of life - Rs.1,00,000/-; (iii) towards funeral expenses - Rs.25,000/-, totally Rs.16,10,000/-. Aggrieved against the Award, the Insurance Company has come forward with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the parents of the dependant has come forward with the Cross Objection.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Tribunal is not correct in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and also it is not correct in fixing future prospects at 50%.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants per contra contends that the Motor Accidents Tribunal ought to have taken 100% towards future dependency considering the earning capacity of the deceased and however, it has rightly fixed the income of the deceased, considering the fact that the victim was working as Personal Assistant to MLA. It is also further contended that the Tribunal has fixed the multiplier taking into account only the age of the dependant and not the deceased.
6. There is no dispute with respect to the liability of the compensation. The question that arose in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is correct in fixing future prospects at 50% when the deceased had no permanent employment and whether the multiplier as fixed by the Tribunal is correct.
7. The copy of the postmortem certificate, Transfer Certificate, copy of driving license of the deceased were marked as Exs.P.3, P.5 and P.8. As per these documents, the age of the deceased was 26 at the time of his death. Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 disclose that the deceased discontinued his Diploma course and he completed vocational training and got certificate, namely National Trade Certificate. He was also holding driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle and Motor Cycle with Gear.
8. The employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and the Salary Certificate, Ex.P.9 was marked through him. From the evidence of P.W.3, the claimants established that the deceased was employed as P.A., to P.W.3 and he was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Considering the age, qualification and the avocation at the time of the death of the deceased, monthly earnings taken on the basis of the above evidence by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. The contention of the appellant that income tax returns or assessment order of the employer was not produced is not sustainable for the simple reason that the poor claimants cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the employer, who might have even evaded the tax.
10. As far as future prospects in case of self-employer or fixed wages, to be added to the compensation towards the dependency, there is difference of opinion among the cases in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 2 TN MAC 55 (SC). One view is that there can't be
