Proper calculation of compensation for dependents under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the deceased's income and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed to enhance the award amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the as per the Ex.P6, the deceased, who died due to the accident occurred on 25.12.2010, was working as Gangman Mazdoor at the office of Tamil Nadu Highways Department and at the time of death, he was about 35 years old and he was drawing a salary of Rs.11,256/-. With regard to the same, a documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal and the same was marked as Ex.P6. Further, it appears that he was paying a sum of Rs.4,575/- towards the home loan along with GPF and the said amount was deducted by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said amount has to be included and thereafter only the compensation should be awarded.

3. He would further contend that the compensation awarded under the head “love and affection” to the second and third respondents herein is on the lower side and the Tribunal had awarded the funeral expenses only to a sum of Rs.5,000/- and no amount was awarded for loss of estate and transportation. Hence, this appeal.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company/second respondent had strongly objected the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and further, questioned about the veracity of Ex.P6. He would further submit that since Ex.P6 is not supported by evidences, the employment of the deceased as Gangman Mazdoor at the office of Tamil Nadu Highways Department is doubtful. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of this petition.

5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would request this Court to fix the notional income and award compensation based on the Ex.P6 and with regard to all other heads, he requests this Court to award compensation as per the law laid down in the judgement in Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC.

6. I had given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.

7. As per Ex.P6, the deceased was receiving a sum of Rs.11,256/- as salary and the same was proved by the document, which was produced and marked through PW1 as Ex.P6. Further, PW1 had categorically stated that her husband as working as Gangman Mazdoor at the office of Tamil Nadu Highways Department at the time of death and PF contribution and loan repayment was also made by him and hence, it is an admitted fact. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below with regard to the consideration of Ex.P6. However, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted a sum of Rs.4,575/-, which was contributed towards the PF and home loan by the deceased. Since these are all the income of the deceased, the same has to be considered by the Trial Court while awarding compensation.

8. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased as a sum of Rs.11,256/- at the time of accident. Since there are three dependents in the family of deceased, towards his personal expenses 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted i.e., Rs.3,752/-. After deducting the said amount, the loss of income for the dependents would come around a sum of Rs.7,504/- (Rs.11,256 – Rs.3,752). Further, the Court below had not included the future prosperous as per the law laid down in Sarla case. Therefore, in the present case, this Court is inclined to include 40% towards future prosperous. By adding 40%, the loss of income per month would be a sum of Rs.10,505/-. In the present case, the multiplier applicable is ''16''