(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.04.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.656 of 1999 on the file of MACT, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.)
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the quantum of compensation of Rs.36,50,000/- with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition, till the date of realisation, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.656 of 1999, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur, by award dated 23.04.2003.
2. As the Challenge is restricted only to quantum, this Court is of the view that there is no need to advert to the findings regarding fixing negligence, and the liability fastened on the United India Insurance Company Limited, Arupukkottai / the 2nd appellant herein, to pay compensation.
3. Short facts leading to the appeal are that on 29.06.1994, at about 6.30 p.m., in Dindigul to Madurai National Highways Road, North of Oothupatti Junction, driver of the bus, bearing Registration No.TN-59-Y-2799, insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd, Aruppukkottai, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Ambassador car, bearing Reg.No.TN- 45?Z-1112. The car was dragged away by 200 feet. In the accident, both the occupants sustained grievous injuries and died, in which, one Rathinam and Mathivanan were travelling. Legal representatives of the deceased persons have filed MCOP.Nos.655 and 656 of 1999 respectively, claiming compensation. As the claim petitions arise out of the same accident, they were tried together and common evidence was adduced.
4. MCOP.No.900 of 1994, filed by the legal representatives of Rathinam, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, has been transferred to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur and re-numbered as MCOP.No.656 of 1999.
5. Material on record discloses that P.W.1 wife of the deceased Rathinam, in her evidence has stated that prior to the accident, her husband was a working partner in M/s.Expo Fabrics and adviser in M/s.Annamalai Fabrics and earned Rs.6,30,355.43 per annum. To prove that the deceased was a working partner P.W.3 has been examined. As per the version of P.W.3, he and the deceased were partners in the textiles business, and they divided the profits in the ratio of 70% and 30%. Ex.A6 is the Expo Fab's Form A - Certificate; Ex.A7 is the ledger maintained by the above said Firm; Ex.A8 is the entry, at page 5 in Ex.A7 showing that the deceased was getting profit at Rs.5,71,008-72; Ex.A9 is the Ledger for the year 1992-1993; Ex.A10 is the entry made in Ex.A9, at page 64-65 showing the profits; Ex.A11 is the ledger for the year 1993-1994; Ex.A12 is the entry, at page No.5 as regards profit received by the deceased; Ex.A13 is the Ledger for the year 1993-1994; Ex.A14 is the entry, at page 150 in Ex.A13, showing the profits received by the deceased; Ex.A15 is the Ledger from 01.04.1994 to 29.06.1994; Ex.A16 has reflected that the deceased Rathinam, received profits, at Rs.2,39,749.18 upto 29.06.1994; Ex.A17 is the Ledger and Ex.A18 is the entry, at page No.2 in Ex.A17.
6. P.W.3 has deposed that the deceased was also working as adviser in M/s. Annamalai Fabrics and received salary of Rs.1000/- per month, and also bonus twice in a year and to prove the same Ex.A19 ledger for the year 1993-1994 has been produced; Ex.A20 is the entry, at page 223 in Ex.A19, to prove that the deceased received salary of Rs.1000/- per month; Ex.A21 is the entry, regrading Deepavali Bonus; Ex.A22 is the entry, at page No.228 in Ex.A19 to prove that the deceased received salary; Ex.A23 is the entry regarding bonus; Ex.A24 is the ledger for the year 1994- 1995 maintained by Annamalai Fabrics; Ex.A25 is the entry regarding salary, at page No.326 and Ex.A26 is the entry, regarding bonus.
7. Going through the above documents and the entries stated supra, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.3,21,000/- and deducted 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and has fixed Rs.2,14,000/-, as the yearly contribution made by the deceased to the family. Upon considering the entries in Ex.A2, postmortem certificate, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased, as 35. Thereafter, applying '17' multiplier, the Tribunal has arrived at the loss of income to the family as Rs.36,38,000/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection; Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and altogether, the Tribunal awarded Rs.36,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
8. Though United India Insurance Company Limited, Arupukkottai / the 2nd appellant herein, has assailed the correctness of the award, on the ground that the Tribunal has erred, in relying on the evidence of P.W.3, stated to be a partner and averred that he has not produced even the partnership deed before the Tribunal and further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have given credence to the ledgers produced by P.W.3, in the absence of any deed of partnership, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions. Accident has occurred on 29.06.1994. When the Claims Tribunal, after going through the ledgers and entries produced by P.W3, to prove that the deceased was a working partner in M/s.Expo Fabrics and also adviser in M/s.Annamalai Fabrics and earned Rs.3,21,000/- per year, and accordingly accepted the avocation and monthly income of the deceased, it cannot be said that the claims Tribunal has committed any manifest illegality in arriving at the quantum of compensation. No valid grounds have been made for interference.
9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with costs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, by making necessary application. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.