Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL – Appellant
Versus
SELVI ALIAS PALANISELVI – Respondent
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166, 168 - Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation determination using age-based multiplier method, consistent with Supreme Court precedents.
Fact of the Case:
A vehicle collision resulted in the death of a man and injuries to his daughter. The family sought compensation from the driver’s insurance for negligence, leading to a Tribunal ruling on the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Tribunal's compensation calculation method apt, confirming its adherence to established legal standards regarding calculation of dependency based on age and future prospects.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in its method of calculating compensation using a split multiplier instead of the appropriate factor based on the deceased's age.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court’s precedent establishes that the deceased's age serves as the basis for the multiplier in compensation cases, rendering the previous methodology applied by the Tribunal appropriate.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs.
O R D E R
This Appeal is file filed seeking an order to set aside to the judgment and decree, dated 18/06/2020 passed in MCOP No.211 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur.
2.The facts in brief:-
On 15/01/2018 at about 12.45 am, the deceased Arumugam along with his family members was returning to his house on the Karuppu Kovil to Veppankudi crematorium mud road which runs north south direction. At that time, the first respondent's vehicle bearing registration No.TN-57-AP-1992 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Arumugam and his daughter Vidhya. On the spot Arumugam died. Vidhya was admitted in the Government Medical Hospital, Karur. Thereafter, she took treatment in Amaravathi Hospital, Karur for one week. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as Junior Assistant in the ESI Hospital, Coimbatore and earning Rs.40,000/- per month.
3.Claiming compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, MCOP No.211 of 2018 is filed. Similarly, the daughter namely Vidhya also filed MCOP No.212 of 2018 claiming compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000 for herself. Both were tried together by the Tribunal.
4.It was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company stating that the deceased and his daughter suddenly crossed the road and invited the occurrence. The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any proper driving licence.
5.Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined and 13 documents marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, 2 witnesses were examined and 5 documents marked.
6.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation amount of Rs. 34,73,796/- in respect of MCOP No.211 of 2018 directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount on behalf of the insured.
7.Against which, this civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred.
8.Heard the appellant. There is no representation for the respondents.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have calculated the dependency by adopting the split multiplier method, but instead, it adopted multiplier of 11 taking into account the age of the deceased. According to her, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 54. He was left with 4 years of service. So, the method of calculation is not proper.
10.But this position has been clarified subsequently in number of judgments. Latest one available is in the case of R.Valli and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.[(2022(1)TNMAC 289]. Wherein the following paragraphs are relevant:- “7.In Pranay Sethi , this Court held that the age of the deceased is the basis for applying suitable multiplier and that the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future prospects. The future prospects were held to 15% in respect of a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years.
8.Mr.Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to certain orders of the High Courts reported as Uma Shankar & Ors. v. Revathy Vadivel & Ors.5, Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Kitab Singh & Ors.6 and Union of India & Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar & Ors.7 to support the applicability of split multiplier i.e., multiplier upto the date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement.
9.The judgments referred to by Mr.
Tiwari are prior to the enunciation of law by this Court in Pranay Sethi . Therefore, such judgments no longer can be said to be good law as suitable multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased in terms of para 59.7 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi .
10.A three-Judge Bench in an order reported as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alia Satwinder Kaur & Ors.8 has applied the multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased even if he was a bachelor. The Court held as under:
“48.Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud , (2019) 5 SCC 554 traced out the law on this is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
