Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, M. GOVINDARAJ, JJ.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sulochana - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2219 of 2016
Decided on : 14-06-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 306 - Fatal Accidents Act - Section 1A – Accident – Injuries - According to respondents/claimants deceased was aged about years a Wireman under Electricity Board and earned - He was only earning member and they were depended on him - date of birth of deceased as per - Service Records under TANGEDCO and hence Tribunal determined age of deceased as years - Legal representatives are wife and three children - Tribunal has awarded under head loss of consortium - As rightly contended by learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company compensation of awarded for loss of love and affection is excessive taking note of fact that 1st respondent wife of deceased has already been compensated for loss of consortium - Held, As regards compensation of Rs awarded towards loss of estate this Court is inclined to consider a decision of Kerala High Court reported wherein a learned Judge of this Court had occasion to consider a question whether amount awarded by Claims Tribunal by way of compensation for loss of dependency and estate forms part of loss of estate or loss to estate of deceased capitalized value of his income subject to relevant deductions would be loss caused to estate by his death - In other words what amount dependents would have got less deductions if any that could be made under law is loss to estate of deceased - That goes to legal heirs of deceased - On other hand loss of estate includes compensation for pain and suffering loss of enjoyment of amenities of deceased - That amount goes to legal heirs by virtue - Appeal is partly allowed.
S.Manikumar, J.
Quantum of compensation of Rs. 42,18,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased M. Kuppan, in M.C.O.P. No.5865 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, is challenged, on the grounds inter alia that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, awarded as loss of estate, is on the higher side. Further contention has been made that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, awarded under the head loss of love and affection, is also excessive. Except the above, no other challenge is made.
2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows:-
On 3/8/2013, at 15.00 hours, when the deceased Kuppan, was going in his cycle, at Jawaharlal Nehri Salai, 100 feet road, a Mahindra van, bearing Registration No.TN22AX-4056, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him. He sustained multiple injuries. He was rushed to New Hope Hospital, Arumbakkam and then, treated in SRMC Hospital, Porur and in Government General Hospital, Chennai. He succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, a case in Crime No.377 of 2013, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered, against the driver of Mahindra van, bearing Registration No.TN22AX-4056, on the file of K4 Anna Nagar Traffic Investigation.
3. Claiming that the deceased was a wireman in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Koyambedu and earned Rs. 22,000/- p.m., legal representatives of the deceased, viz., wife and three sons, aged 23, 20 and 17 years, respectively, filed claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.5865 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, for a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/-.
4. Disputing the manner of accident, appellant-Insurance Company, has filed a counter affidavit, before the Tribunal. Without prejudice to the above, they also disputed the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads.
5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of Mahindra Van, bearing Registration No.TN22X-4056 was negligent, in causing the accident and quantified the compensation as Rs. 42,18,460/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% pa., from the date of claim till deposit and apportioned the same, as hereunder:-
Loss of pecuniary benefits
...
Rs.35,93,460/-
Loss of consortium
...
Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection
...
Rs. 4,00,000/-
Loss of estate
...
Rs. 1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses
...
Rs. 25,000/-
Rs.42,18,460/-
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. According to the respondents/claimants, the deceased was aged about 45 years, a Wireman under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and earned Rs. 22,000/- per month. He was the only earning member and they were depended on him. The date of birth of the deceased as per Ex.P8 - Service Records under TANGEDCO, is 01.07.1965 and hence, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 48 years.
7. Though it was contended that the deceased earned Rs. 22,000/- per month, upon considering the evidence of PW.3, Mr. E. Santhana Mariappan, Assistant Engineer/O&M/Koyambedu, TNEB, Chennai and other documents, the Tribunal determined the income at Rs. 23,626/- per month and added 30% (Rs.7,088/-) towards future prospects, which works out to Rs. 30,714/-. After deducting one-fourth for the personal and living expenses, fixed Rs. 23,035/- as the monthly family contribution. As per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1, the multiplier that may be adopted for the age group of persons, for 45 years to 50 years is “13”. The Tribunal has rightly applied 13' multiplier and arrived at the loss of contribution, as Rs. 35,93,460/-.
8. That apart, the Tribuna
