Madras High Court
E.Geetha Rajeswari vs Amirthavalli on 27 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
1.E.Geetha Rajeswari
2.E.Venkat Ranjith
3.E.Guru Rajesh .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Amirthavalli
2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, S.L.S. Towers, 1st Floor,
No.68, Cherry Road,
Salem – 636 007. .. Respondents
(R1 remained exparte)
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
05.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Kuppusamy
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.N.Somasundaar
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”.
2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the award dated 05.01.2018 made in
M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
3.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2016 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
as compensation for the death of one Elango, who died in the accident that
took place on 16.01.2016.
4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the car belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.26,18,333/- as
compensation to the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal failed to see that split multiplier can be adopted only for specific
reason and evidence on record. The split multiplier cannot be applied in a
routine manner. The Tribunal failed to consider that deceased could have been
gainfully employed after his retirement and would have received income
equivalent to the salary which he was receiving while he was in service. The
deceased was aged 59 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has not
granted any future prospects. The deceased worked as Development Officer in
LIC and there is ample scope for him to work as an agent in LIC and he
would have earned equivalent earning while he was in service. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that for applying split multiplier method, the facts and
circumstances of the case must be considered and there is no straight jacket
formula for the application of split multiplier and prayed for allowing the
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
6(a).In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants relied on the following judgments:
(i)A judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.2960 of 2018, [Radha
Sagayamary and others Vs. Marimuthu and another], wherein this Court at
paragraph Nos.8 & 9 held as follows:
“...8. A Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 652 (DB)
[Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Venkateswari and
others, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Puttamma (cited supra), in
paragraph 24 held as follows:-
“24. The Judgments relied on by
the learned counsel for the
Appellant/Insurance Company would
speak about the split Multiplier concept.
However, in the Judgement rendered by
the Honourable Supreme Court in
Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.Narayana
Reddy and another, 2014(1) TN MAC 481
(SC), at paragraph 34, it has been held
that “We, therefore, hold that in absence
of any specific reason and evidence on
record the Tribunal or the Court should
not apply Split Multiplier in routine course
and should apply Multiplier as per
decision of this Court in the case of Sarla
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,
2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), as affirmed in
the case of Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan
Mohan, 2013 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC).”
9. In the judgment reported in 2013(2)
TNMAC 113(DB), the deceased was Assistant Special
Grade Officer in University, the possibility of being
employed after retirement was considered. In the
present case, the deceased was working as a male
attender trained in dealing with mentally retarded
persons and he could have got a job even after his
retirement and get the same salary. The Tribunal
failed to consider the possibility of deceased getting a
job after retirement and getting decent salary. In view
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
Division bench of this Court referred to above and
the possibility of getting a similar job after
retirement, the split multiplier applied by the
Tribunal is set aside. The compensation for loss of
income is modified as follows:
Rs.19,140/- x 12 x 8 x ¾ = Rs.13,78,080/-.”
(ii)A Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.2996 of
2019, [P.Jeeva and others Vs. N.Nehru and another], wherein the Division
Bench of this Court at paragraph No.6 held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
“...6.Insofar as the issue qua split multiplier is
concerned, it can never be stated that the Tribunal is
prevented from adopting the same in all cases. In the
given case, it is well open to the Tribunal to adopt
the doctrine of split multiplier which has been done
in this case. Admittedly, the deceased was 56 years
old and working as Deputy Manager in the State
Bank of India. Therefore, the Tribunal split the
multiplier into two. One is the period during which
he would have worked and the remaining period had
he lived after his retirement. However, there are two
mistakes committed by the Tribunal. One is with
respect to the percentage of future income on the
death. It has adopted 10% as against 15%, as fixed
by the Apex Court and in a similar case, the
consequential multiplier has been adopted for 11
years instead of 9 years.”
(iii)A Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.3307 of
2019, [P.Santhi and others Vs. K.Venkatachalam and another], wherein the
Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No.11, held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
“...11.In the light of the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court, mentioned supra, we are of
the view that the split multiplier adopted by the
Tribunal is liable to be interfered with inter alia to
award compensation by adding 15% of the monthly
income of the deceased towards future prospects. For
this purpose, the amount of Rs.12,992/- reflected in
Ex.P11, salary slip of the deceased is taken into
account. In fact, PW3, Thavasiappan, one of the staff
of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined
before the Tribunal through whom Ex.P11 was
marked. Therefore, taking the sum of Rs.12,992/- as
the gross monthly income of the deceased is proper.
For the purpose of awarding future prospects of the
deceased, 15% of the amount of Rs.12,992/- is added
taking the total monthly income of the deceased to
Rs.14,940/- (Rs.12,992/- + Rs.1,948 - 15% of future
prospects). Out of this amount, one third amount has
to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the
deceased and after such deduction, the monthly
income of the deceased could be arrived at
(Rs.14,940 - 4980) Rs.9,960/-. Applying multiplier
'11' inasmuch as the deceased died at the age of 51,
the amount payable to the appellants towards loss of
earning will be Rs.13,14,720/- (Rs.9960/- X 12 X 11).
This according to us will be a fair and reasonable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
compensation towards pecuniary loss suffered by the
appellants/claimants.”
7.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and her name is
printed in the cause list, there is no representation for her, either in person or
through counsel.
8.Per contra, Mr.N.Somasundaar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company contended that at the time of accident the
deceased was aged 59 years and 6 months and had only 6 months of service.
He had no promotional opportunity. The Tribunal rightly considered and not
granted any enhancement for future prospects and granted compensation by
applying split multiplier. The appellants have not pleaded and proved that
after his retirement the deceased would have worked as an LIC agent and
would have earned amount equivalent to the amount he was earning while in
service. In view of the same, there is no reason to interfere in the award
passed by the Tribunal and relied on the following judgments:
(i)A Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (7) MLJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
410, [The Divisional Manager, M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Saraladevi and others], wherein this Court at
paragraph No.11 held as follows:
“..11.As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in Sarla Verma and others .vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another (2009 (2) TN
MAC 1), the correct multiplier between the age of 56
to 60 is 9. Therefore, multiplier of 9 could be taken
into consideration for arriving at compensation to the
case on hand since the deceased was 58 years at the
time of his death. If the actual salary of Rs.50,809/- is
taken into consideration, the annual loss of income
works out to Rs.6,09,708/-. 10% of the amount is
liable to be deducted towards income tax deduction.
10% in the sum of Rs.6,09,708/- comes to
Rs.60,970.80 and the same can be rounded off to
Rs.61,000/-. If so, the balance amount works out to
Rs.5,48,708- (Rs.6,09,708/- minus Rs.61,000/-),
rounded off to Rs.5,49,000/-. Hence, annual loss of
income could be fixed at Rs.5,49,000/-. For the first
two years, the loss of income would be Rs.10,98,000/-
(Rs.5,49,000/- x 2 years). For the balance seven
years, only 50% annual income has to be taken into
consideration as notional income, which comes to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
Rs.19,21,500/- (Rs.2,74,500/- x 7 years). Therefore,
the total loss of income works out to Rs.30,19,500/-
(Rs.10,98,000/- + Rs19,21,500/-).”
(ii)A Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2013 (2)
TNMAC 113 (DB), [R.Leelavathy Vs. Sheik Dawood and another], wherein
this Court at paragraph Nos.11 & 12, held as follows:
“..11. In the case on hand, Ex.P.6 is the salary
certificate. In the absence of any contrary evidence,
Tribunal was not right in fixing the take home salary
of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- for the period during
which he would have been in employment. The
Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of deceased at
Rs.22,474/- for the period of one year of left over
service of deceased taking into consideration that the
deceased is aged 57 years at the time of accident and
deducted 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses
of deceased, to arrive at the loss of dependency to the
family. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to take the
salary of deceased as Rs.22,474/- for the period of one
year i.e., till the deceased attained the age of 58 years.
After deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
Rs.7491/-, contribution to the family is calculated at
Rs.14,983/- which is rounded off to Rs.15,000/- and
the yearly loss of contribution to the family is
calculated at Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12).
12. In respect of the period after
superannuation of the deceased on attaining the age
of 58 years, he would have got 50% of his last drawn
salary as pension, which could be approximately
quantified at Rs11,250/- (Rs.22,474x 50/100) and
deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses therefrom,
loss of contribution per month would be Rs.7,500/-.
The age of the deceased is 57 years and as per the
Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the proper
multiplier would be "8". As we have taken multiplier
"1" for the period of his service, the amount of
Rs.7,500/- as loss of contribution to the family is to be
taken into account for the remaining multiplier of "7".
The loss of dependency to the claimant for the
remaining period of 7 years works out to Rs.7,500 x
12 x 7 = Rs.6,30,000/-. Therefore, the total loss of
dependency is Rs.8,10,000/-.”
(iii)A Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (1)
TNMAC 334 (DB), [Branch Manager, National Insurance Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
Limited Vs. M.Arulmozhi and others], wherein this Court at paragraph
Nos.13 & 14, held as follows:
“...13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased
was employed as Assistant Administrative Officer in
Agricultural Department and was earning an income
of Rs. 17,529/- per month, which is evidence by Exs.
P.6 and P.7 Salary Certificates. From a perusal of
EX.P.6, it could be seen that a sum of Rs.255/- is
deducted compulsorily from the salary. Therefore,
the deceased was getting a net monthly income of
Rs.17,274/-. The age of the deceased on the date of
accident was 57 years and the multiplier to be
adopted is 8, are not in dispute. From the materials
available on record, it can be inferred that on the
date of accident, the deceased was 57 years and 3
months old and had only 9 months of service before
his retirement. Though normally 8 multiplier would
be applied in computing the loss of dependency, in
this case, the same cannot be done as the income of
the deceased will not be the same from the date of
retirement. Though the deceased had only 9 months
of service, the appellant has got no serious objection
to round it of to one year. Accordingly, the period
before retirement is taken as one year. Therefore, the
loss dependency before retirement of the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
would be Rs. 17, 274/- X 12 X ¼ X 1 = Rs. 1,55,466/-.
14. Now, the dependency after the retirement
of the deceased is to be considered. Had the
deceased Murugesan been alive, after the age of
superannuation, he would get only half of the salary
as pension. Therefore, it is an exceptional case where
the split multiplier has to be adopted, ie., 1 + 7 = 8.
As there is no scope for evidence about the prospect
of future increment of the deceased and since the
earning would be reduced to 50% after retirement,
the multiplier of 8 as adopted by the Tribunal cannot
be sustained. Hence, this Court feels that split
multiplier can be adopted and as such, after
superannuation, 7 multiplier would apply. Therefore,
the loss dependency from pensionary benefits would
be Rs.8,637/- X 12 X ¼ X 7 = Rs. 5,44,131/-.”
(iv)A Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (1)
TNMAC 651 (DB), [Uma Shankar and another Vs. Revathy Vadivel and
others], wherein this Court at paragraph Nos.5 & 8, held as follows:
“...5. On evaluation of the entire evidence both
oral and documentary available on records the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
Tribunal has held that the accident was only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
car. At the time of accident the deceased was 61
years and he was working as a General Manager in
M/s.Sivakami Commercial Company Private Limited
and drawing a sum of Rs.22,425/- p.m. after
deduction towards Income Tax. Considering the fact
that the employment of the deceased was getting
extended by every year as could be seen from Ex.P6
appointment order, the Tribunal has taken
Rs.22,425/- p.m. for one year and for rest of six
years, 50% of the monthly income, i.e. Rs.11,212.50
has been taken and thus by adopting split multiplier,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,17,600/-
towards loss of income, after deducting 1/3rd
towards personal expenses. (Rs.22425/- x 12 (for one
year) + 11212.50 x 12 x 6 (for six years) = 10,76,400
- 3,58,800/- (less 1/3rd towards personal expenses) =
Rs.7,17,600/-.
8. It is true that the Courts should not
introduce the concept of split multiplier departing
from the multiplier method as guided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Sarla Verma case" (cited supra)
without disclosing any reason therefor. But on a
perusal of the award of the Tribunal, we find that that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
for adopting the split multiplier, the Tribunal has
given sufficient reasons. Admittedly, as seen from
Ex.P6 appointment order, the employment of the
deceased was renewable and being extended by
every year. Therefore, taking note of this, the
Tribunal was of the view that it cannot be expected
that the service of the deceased as General Manager
will be extended for the remaining seven years,
hence, it is appropriate to take full salary for a
period of one year and thereafter 50% of the salary
for the remaining six years and accordingly, the
Tribunal determined the loss of income as stated
supra. This reasoning of the Tribunal, in our view, is
justifiable and reasonable since the possibility of
extending or not extending the services of the
deceased for the remaining seven years has been
rightly considered as 50:50. Hence, we are not
inclined to take a different view. Therefore, as the
Tribunal has given reasons for adopting split
multiplier, the decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellants cannot be made applicable
to the present case.”
(v)A judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (2) TNMAC 556, [The
General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Periyamilaguparai, Trichy – 1 Vs. N.Paramasivam], wherein this Court at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
paragraph Nos.11 & 12, held as follows:
“...11.The appellant has further contended in
the Grounds of Appeal that the multiplier applied by
the Tribunal is not correct. The Judgements relied on
by counsel for the appellant reported in 2014(1) TN
MAC 334(DB)(supra) and 2012(7) MLJ
410(DB)(supra) squarely applies to the facts of the
case. Similar to deceased in those cases, the
deceased in the present case, was also aged 59 years.
He would have retired on completion of age of 60. In
the circumstances, following the above two
judgements, I am inclined to accept the contention of
the learned counsel for the respondent that the
respondent is entitled to compensation by applying
split multiplier method.
12.Therefore, the respondent is entitled to
compensation for loss of income for one year on the
full salary of the deceased and thereafter, only on
50% of the salary, as loss of income based on the
pension, which the deceased would have received
after his retirement. The deceased was aged 59 years
and multiplier applicable as per the Judgement of the
Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and
others .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
another(2009(6) SCC 121), is ''9'' The first
respondent is entitled to loss of income as follows:
The deceased was earning a sum of
Rs.10,271/-p.m. He died as bachelor. 50% from his
salary is deducted towards his personal expenses.
After deducting 50%, he would have contributed
Rs.5,135.50/- p.m. towards maintenance of
respondent. After his retirement, he would have
received Rs.5135.50 and after deducting 50% his
contribution, the monthly loss of income will be
Rs.2567/- which is rounded off to Rs.2600/-.
Following the two judgements, the order of the
Tribunal with respect to compensation for loss of
income to the respondent, is modified as follows:
Rs.5,200/- x 12 x 1 = Rs. 62,400/-
Rs.2,600/- x 12 x 8 = Rs.2,49,600/-
-----------------------------------------------------
Total loss of income = Rs.3,12,000
-----------------------------------------------------”
(vi)A Division Bench judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in
C.M.A.(MD).No.665 of 2018, [The Divisional Manager Vs. Mariyammal
and others], wherein the Madurai Bench of this Court at paragraph Nos.7 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
9, held as follows:
“...7.This appeal has been preferred only
challenging the quantum, According to the claimants,
the deceased was working as Grade-I Chowkidhar in
Central Government Ware Housing Corporation,CW,
K.K.Nagar, Trichy and the Regional Manager of the
Central Government Ware Housing Corporation
gave evidence as P.W.3 and produced the Service
Register, which were marked as Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.
According to the evidence of P.W.3, the last drawn
salary of the deceased was Rs.42,784/- p.m. Based on
the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2, the
Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at
Rs.42,784/- p.m and the age of the deceased as 59
years.
9.The Division Bench of this Court in
2013(2)TN MAC 113, 2013(2) TN MAC 729, 2014(1)
TN MAC 334 and 2015(2) TN MAC 449 and Kerala
High Court in 2016(1) TN MAC 493 applied split
multiplier theory in similar facts. According to the
age of the deceased, proper multiplier is '9'. It is not
in dispute that the salary of the deceased is
Rs.42,784/- and by adding 15% towards future
prospects, the income of the deceased comes to
Rs.49,202/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
personal and living expenses, the contribution to the
family comes to Rs.32,802/-. By applying split
multiplier, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,93,624/-
for the left over service and for the remaining period,
by taking 50% of the salary, this Court awards
Rs.15,74,496/-. Hence, the total loss of income is
arrived at Rs.19,68,120/-. Further, this Court awards
a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional damages.
In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.20,38,120/-
which is rounded off to Rs.20,39,000/-. Interest rate
awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. As per the
award of the Tribunal, the appellant and fifth
respondent shall pay the award amount at the ratio
of 50:50.”
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
10.One of the issues to be decided in this appeal is whether the split
multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal to arrive at compensation for loss
of dependency is correct or not.
10(i).Split multiplier method is adopted in case of salaried person who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
died in the accident on the verge of his retirement. After retirement, the person
will not be getting the same salary as he was getting while in service. He will
be getting only 50% of his salary as pension and his contribution to the family
will be proportionately reduced. In such case, it will not be proper to grant
compensation for loss of dependency on the salary he was getting while in
service. In some case, the deceased person in the nature of work he was doing,
may get employment after his retirement similar to the work he was doing
while in service and get salary equal to the amount he was getting while in
service. In such case, the claimants are entitled to compensation on the entire
salary he was getting while in service. In other cases, the claimants are
entitled to compensation only by adopting split multiplier method. The split
multiplier method can be adopted based on the facts and circumstances of the
case depending on the nature of work done by the deceased and whether he
could have got similar employment and same salary.
11.In the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, no
complete prohibition is imposed on the Tribunal or Courts for applying split
multiplier method. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2019, [P.Jeeva and others Vs. N.Nehru and another],
the Division Bench of this Court held that it can never be stated that Tribunal
is prevented from adopting split multiplier in all the cases. It is further held
that in the given case, it is open to the Tribunal to adopt doctrine of split
multiplier. In the present case, the Tribunal adopted split multiplier method
taking into consideration the pleadings and nature of employment of the
deceased.
12.It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was working as
Development Officer and after his retirement he would have worked as LIC
Agent and would have earned amount equivalent to the salary received while
he was in service. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further
contended that unless there is specific pleadings and proof for applying split
multiplier, the Tribunal as a matter of routine cannot apply split multiplier for
awarding compensation. From the averments in the claim petition filed by the
appellants it is seen that the appellants have not pleaded that after retirement
the deceased would have worked as an LIC Agent and would have earned
amount equivalent to the salary received by him while he was in service. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
unless there is pleadings and evidence, split multiplier cannot be applied. The
same principle applies for appellants also. Unless the appellants had pleaded,
the respondents will not have opportunity to rebut the same. In view of no
pleadings, the present contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that split multiplier applied by the Tribunal is erroneous is not
acceptable. The appellants have not proved that after the retirement the
deceased would have worked as an LIC Agent and earned money. In view of
the same, the split multiplier applied by the Tribunal does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
13.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was
aged 59 years and 6 months at the time of accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in the judgment reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], granted 10%
enhancement towards future prospects for the age of the persons who died
between 50 to 60 years. In view of the same, the appellants are entitled to
10% enhancement towards future prospects. The Tribunal has granted
compensation for one year at the rate of Rs.64,370/- the salary received by the
deceased per month at the time of accident and for 8 years at the rate of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
Rs.32,185/-, being 50% of the monthly salary received by the deceased. Thus,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency till the
retirement of the deceased is modified as follows:
(i)Rs.5,66,456/- {Rs.70,807/- [Rs.64,370/- + Rs.6,437/- (10% of
Rs.64,370/-)] X 12 X 2/3}
(ii)During the Financial Year 2015 – 2016, there was no income tax
deducted upto Rs.2,50,000/- and thereafter, 10% income tax has been
deducted for the amount exceeding from Rs.2,50,000/- upto Rs.5,00,000/-. By
applying the said principle, 10% income tax has to be deducted for
Rs.3,16,456/-(Rs.5,66,456/- - Rs.2,50,000/-) which amounts to Rs.31,646/-.
(iii)Thus, the annual income of the deceased would comes to
Rs.5,34,810/- (Rs.5,66,456/- - Rs.31,646/-).
13(a).The Tribunal fixed 50% of the last drawn salary of the deceased
(i.e., Rs.32,185/-) as his pension and the same is proper. But the Tribunal has
not granted any enhancement towards future prospects. By applying 10%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
enhancement towards future prospects, and applying multiplier '8' (fixing after
adjusting the amount calculated for one year), the loss of dependency after
retirement of the deceased comes to Rs.22,65,792/- {Rs.35,403/- [Rs.32,185/-
+ Rs.3,218/- (10% of Rs.32,185/-)] X 12 X 8 X 2/3}.
13(a)(i) Thus, the total loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.28,00,602/-
(Rs.5,34,810/- + Rs.22,65,792/-).
13(b).The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love
and affection to appellants 2 and 3. Though the appellants 2 and 3 are major
sons, they have lost the love and affection of their father and hence, they are
entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant,
funeral expenses and loss of estate are just and reasonable and hence, the
same are hereby confirmed.
14.It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to award just
compensation. Though the claimant has claimed lesser compensation, the
Courts have power to grant just compensation more than the amount claimed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
by the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 25,48,333/- 28,00,602/- Enhanced
2. Loss of consortium 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed
to 1st appellant
3. Loss of love and
affection to - 80,000/- Granted
appellants 2 and 3
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
5. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.26,18,333/- Rs.29,50,602/- Enhanced by
rounded off to Rs.3,32,267/-
Rs.29,50,600/-
15.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.26,18,333/- is hereby enhanced
to Rs.29,50,600/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants are directed to pay
the necessary Court fee for the enhanced amount of compensation. The 2 nd
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now
determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2016 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. On
such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share
of the award amount now determined by this Court, as per the ratio of
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary
applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
27.01.2021
krk
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
To
1.The Special District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
C.M.A.No.3043 of 2019
27.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
