Full Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.
1. Claimants have filed this appeal against the disallowed portion of the award dated 7.11.2000, made in M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 1 of 1997, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras in awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,83,220, as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000, for the death of one Ganesan.
2. Claimants are wife, mother, father and son of the deceased.
3. On 5.1.1996 at about 1300 hours, when the deceased Ganesan was walking along the N.S.C. Bose Road, a bus bearing registration No. TME 145, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Ganesan, as a result of which he died on the spot. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the bus, which is insured with respondent No. 2.
4. The Tribunal factually found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and, therefore, compensation has to be paid by respondent No. 2, who is the insurer of respondent No. 1.
5. No appeal is filed by the respondents against the said finding of the Tribunal and hence, it has become final.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the award of Rs. 2,83,220 in total under different heads, is too low and hence, the compensation should be enhanced.
7. PW 1, wife of the deceased, deposed that her husband was earning a sum of Rs. 100 per day by working as a mason and that he was contributing a sum of Rs. 2,500 per month to the family. As per Exh. P1, post-mortem report, age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of the accident.
8. The Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 1,180 per month and calculated the annual loss of income at Rs. 14,160. Since the deceased was aged 32 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier '17' and fixed the total loss of income at Rs. 2,40,720.
9. In this context, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision (sic) of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Supe Dei v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , wherein it was held that when the deceased was aged about 32 years, the proper multiplier to be adopted is '17'. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:
(8) While considering the question of just compensation payable in a case all relevant factors including the appropriate multiplier are to be kept in mind. The position is well settled that the Second Schedule under Section 163-A to the Act which gives the amount of compensation to be determined for the purpose of claim under the section can be taken as a guideline while determining the compensation under Section 166 of the Act. In that view of the matter, there is no reason why multiplier of 17 should not be taken as the appropriate multiplier in this case.
10. Considering the fact that deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident and he died leaving behind his wife, a minor son and parents, I feel, his monthly income can be fixed at Rs. 2,700. Taking it into account, if we deduct 1/3rd towards 'personal expenses', the monthly dependency of the family comes to Rs. 1,800. Thus, the annual loss of income would be Rs. 21,600. Applying multiplier 17, total loss of income for the family has to be fixed at Rs. 3,67,200, as against Rs. 2,40,720, fixed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards 'loss of consortium' to the wife, namely, appellant No. 1, which I feel, is on higher side. Instead, a sum of Rs. 5,000 can be awarded under the said head. Further, a sum of Rs. 10,000 each was awarded by the Tribunal for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for Moss of love and affection', which in my view, is not admissible. However, a sum of Rs. 2,500 can be awarded towards 'loss to estate', which was not awarded by the Tribunal. Under the head 'funeral expenses', Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500, which can be reduced to Rs. 2,000.
11. Thus, award of the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 93,480, taking the total to Rs. 3,76,700. As such, the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal, with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Out of the enhanced amount, the appellant No. i is entitled to Rs. 63,480 and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 to Rs. 10,000 each. Except appellant No. 4. who is a minor, the other appellants are at liberty to withdraw their shares. As regards appellant No. 4, his share shall be kept in fixed deposit until he attains majority. On other aspects, award of the Tribunal stands.
13. With the above modification of the award, this appeal is allowed in part. No costs.