Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Durai

Madras HC9 Jan 2014CMA(MD)/13/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail-and-remand appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal partly. The court reduced the compensation award by increasing the deduction for personal expenses to 50% for the deceased bachelor and correcting the multiplier from 12 to 17, based on the age of the deceased.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the award is reduced to Rs. 7,22,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. The appellant is directed to deposit the full amount.

The Branch Manager Vs Durai — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD).No.13 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014

¶7

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 52, South Masi Street, Madurai-625 001. ...Appellant/2^nd Respondent Vs.

1.Thiru.Durai

2.Tmt.Lakshmi

3.Miss.Shanthi

4.Minor.Sathishkumar

(rep.by his father & Guardian R1)...1 to 4 respondents/ Petitioners 1 to 4

¶13

5.Thiru.Kodeeswaran ...5^th Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶14

PRAYER :This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in MACOP No.1574 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2^nd Additional District Judge)Tiruchirapalli, dated 07.11.2012.

¶15

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Pandivel For Respondents 1 to 4: M/s.C.Bharathi

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company Ltd, aggrieved by the quantum of the award granted by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4.

¶18

2.The accident occurred on 31.01.2010. At the time of accident, the deceased Shunmugam was standing in the eastern side of Trichy-Madurai main road and a tourist bus belonging to the fifth respondent insured with the appellant was driven by its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting in death of the said person on the spot.

¶19

¶20

Therefore, the claim petition. After contest, the tribunal found that the driver of the tourist bus alone was responsible for the accident and directed the appellant to pay the amount which was determined at Rs.8,12,000/-. The said award is challenged on the ground of quantum alone.

¶21

3.Mr.R.Pandivel, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, 50% is required to be deducted whereas the Tribunal deducted only 1/3^rd . Hence, he seeks for deduction of 50% from the monthly income towards personal expenses and reduce the award amount. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants supports the award.

¶22

4.A perusal of the award would show that based on the evidence especially Ex.P.1-FIR copy and the evidence of eye witness P.W2, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the tourist bus. Therefore, the said finding cannot be disturbed.

¶23

5.With regard to the quantum as rightly pointed out by Mr.Pandivel learned counsel for the appellant only 1/3^rd of the monthly income was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas the deceased was a bachelor and 50% of the amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses, as per the judgment of the Division Bench in VELLATHAI AND ANOTHER V. TAMIL NADU STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED reported in 2012 (2) TAN MAC 82(DB).

¶24

6.The monthly income of the deceased was determined at Rs.5,200/-. The accident occurred on 31.01.2010 whereas for the accident which occurred on 28.12.2008, the Division Bench of this Court determined the monthly income of the deceased in the absence of any proof for income at Rs.6,000/- in M.SENGABAGAM AND OTHERS V. VINODKUMAR reported in 2013(2)TAN MAC 450(DB) . Therefore, this Court suo motu determines the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. As the deceased was a bachaller, 50% is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and accordingly the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family is determined as Rs.3,000/-.

¶25

7.The Tribunal adopted multiplier '15' according to the age of the mother viz., '42'. Though Mr.Pandivel, learned counsel for the appellant wanted this Court to sustain the said multiplier, in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.MANSOOR AND ANOTHER VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LIT. ANOTHER, reported in 2013(2) TAN MAC 481 (SC), it is held that the selection of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ multiplier must be on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the claimants. The relevant Paragraph Nos.13 to 16 are extracted as follows:

¶26

¶27

“13. The question relating to deduction for personal and living expenses and selection of multiplier fell for consideration before this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (Supra) cited above and this Court referred to large number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Nance vs. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC), Davies vs. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. No.2 (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL) and made an attempt to limit the exercise of discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of award of compensation by laying down - straitjacket formula under different headings in its judgment some of which are enumerated below :

¶28

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶29

Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his - own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.

¶30

Thus even if the deceased is survived by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor

¶31

¶32

and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as twothird.”

¶33

Admittedly, both the parents namely the appellants herein have been held to be dependants to the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu and therefore, the Tribunal held that they have the right to get the compensation. The Tribunal as well as the High Court made a deduction of 1/3rd only towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent 2013 STPL(Web) 860 SC 4 M. Mansoor & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in No.1, the deceased being a bachelor and the - claimants being parents, the deduction of 50% has to be made as personal and living expenses as per the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma case (supra) extracted above. The first question is determined accordingly. 15. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the parents/claimants. This Court in the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 738 held as follows :

¶34

“15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.”

¶35

In the decision in Sarla Verma case (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased wrongly - applied the multiplier of 17 and the High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down to the multiplier of 12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

¶37

Therefore, following the above said judgment the multiplier is determined as '17'. As per the age of the deceased viz., 22, the loss of income is determined as follows: 6,000 – 1/2 x 12 x 17 = 6,12,000/-.

¶38

8.The tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/towards transport and other expenses and the same are reasonable and confirmed. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is reduced to Rs.7,22,000/-, the appeal is partly allowed with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a as given by the Tribunal.

¶39

9.The appellant deposited only Rs.25,000/- and therefore, it is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and cost by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount to the claimants within two weeks thereafter. No costs.Connected M.P. is closed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶42

/ True copy /

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

¶45

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (2^nd Additional District Jduge) Tiruchirappalli.

¶46