M. Kothandapani v. N. Baby Mikcolal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE. S.VIMALA C.M.A.No.2153 of 2017
1. M.Kothandapani
2. K.Srinivasan
3. Umadevi
4. Saravanan
5. Vijayalakshmi
6. Raja Rajeswari ... Appellants/Petitioners versus
1. N.Baby Mikcolal
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Office, No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
... Respondents/Respondents (R1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal) Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.933 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Chengalpet.
For Appellants :
M/s.J.Mahalingam For R2 :
Mr.C.Paranthaman
JUDGMENT
The legal representatives of the deceased Syamala, aged 44 years (as indicated in the claim petition), a house wife, who died in an accident on 15.05.1990, filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.933 of 2001, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Chengalpet, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
1.1. The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation. The break-up details of the compensation reads as under:
Loss of happiness - Rs.50,000/- Cremation expenses - Rs. 2,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs.52,000/- ----------------- Challenging the award as inadequate, the claimants have filed this appeal.
2.
The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants submit that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded meagre amount as compensation in respect of death of a person, who was aged only 40 years (as taken by the Tribunal); especially when the deceased was shown to be a house wife, the Tribunal should have quantified the household services in terms of money.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company submits that when the husband himself admitted in cross examination that there is no issue regarding loss of income, the Tribunal is right in not awarding compensation on account of loss of income.
4. No doubt, the husband has admitted that there is no loss of income, as the deceased was shown as house-wife. It is clear from the evidence that the deposition is unambiguous without any colour being offered to it. The husband has deposed that the deceased was not earning any income. However, by the same stretch, the husband has not spoken that the deceased was not at all rendering any household services. It is out of sheer ignorance that the husband has stated that the deceased was not earning income. It has been held in a catena of decisions that household services, which is rendered by a housewife would also qualify for being taken into consideration and the same has to be monetarily quantified and just and reasonable compensation has to be awarded.
5 It is relevant to point out that no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection in respect of any of the claimants. Therefore, it is clear that the award requires enhancement.
6. The learned counsel appearing of the Insurance Company/second respondent submits that the Court should fix the monthly income of the deceased by taking into account the date of accident, i.e., roughly about three decades before, i.e., as on 15.05.1990.
7. It is also pointed out that this Court should take note of the fact that interest has to be paid by the Insurance
Company for a period of 27 years.
8.
Taking into account all the above facts and circumstances, while this Court fixes the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.1,000/-, adopting the multiplier of 14, quantifies the loss of income to the family at Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.1,000 X 12 X 14). This Court awards an amount of Rs.10,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of love, in all totalling to Rs.60,000/=. The amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards cremation expenses is confirmed.
9. It is represented by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants that this Court should award interest, if not at 9%, atleast at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company, interest has to be paid from the year 1990. It is further to be pointed out that though the accident had happened in the year 1990, however, the claim petition has been laid only in the year 2001. In such circumstances, keeping in mind the period of 27 years from the date of accident till date, this Court if of the considered opinion that interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, would be just and reasonable.
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.52,000/- to Rs.2,30,000/-, payable by the Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. No costs.
10. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-, less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The claimants are entitled to the compensation as per the ratio of the apportionment made by the Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount directly to the Bank account of the respective claimants through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter. The claimants shall pay the court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
ogy/GLN To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.(2 copies) C.M.A.No.2153 of 2017 rsy(CO) TR(04/04/2018)