Judgment:
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
1. The above appeals are by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award made in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 58 and 67 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry at Karaikal dated 8.3.1999, whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,45,500 (rupees three lakh forty-five thousand and five hundred) with 12 per cent interest per annum to appellants-claimants in CM.A. No. 274 of 2001 for the death of one Mohamed Arief, son of appellant No. 1, husband of the appellant No. 2, father of appellant Nos. 3 to 6 and brother of appellant No. 7 and Rs. 2,45,000 (rupees two lakh and forty-five thousand) to the appellant-claimant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 for the injuries sustained by him, in the motor accident said to have taken place on 21.2.1998 at about 10.45 a.m. in the East Coast Road near Poonthan-dalam village.
2.1 The facts in brief are: On 21.2.1998 at 10.45 a.m., the deceased and three more persons were travelling in Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. PY 02-9100 and at the East Coast Road near Poonthandalam village towards Madras, a lorry bearing registration No. TMC 6453 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Tata Sumo, due to which one Mohamed Arief, the husband of the appellant No. 2 in C.M.A. No. 274 of 2001, died on the spot and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 sustained grievous injuries.
2.2 In the respective claim petitions referred to above, appellants-claimants have claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,02,20,000 and Rs. 10,00,000 respectively under the various heads, which was resisted by the insurance company, respondent No. 2, on the ground that the accident occurred only due to rash driving of the driver of the car, who after causing an accident at one place, fled without stopping at that place and dashed against the lorry which was coming in the opposite direction very slowly and hence, the driver of the car is the sole cause for the accident. The compensation amount claimed by appellants-claimants was also disputed by the respondents as being excessive.
2.3 The Tribunal, after careful analysis of the materials available on record, by the impugned judgment, while holding, on the basis of materials placed on record, that the driver of the car had also contributed to the accident, held that the mother and brother of the deceased Mohamed Arief, who are claimant Nos. 1 and 7/appellant Nos. 1 and 7 in C.M.A. No. 274 of 2001, are not entitled to any compensation since they are not the dependants of the deceased and that the wife of the deceased is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,45,500 under the heads, loss of income, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to estate. Tribunal further awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,45,000 to the appellant-claimant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 for the injuries sustained by him under the following heads:
Permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000Medical expenses Rs. 1,25,000Transport charges Rs. 10,000Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000____________Rs. 2,45,000____________
2.4 Aggrieved by the said award of compensation, the appellants-claimants have come forward with the above appeals seeking enhancement.
3. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.
4. It is not in dispute that in the impugned accident, the husband of appellant No. 2 in C.M.A. No. 274 of 2001 had died on the spot and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 sustained grievous injuries. First, let us analyse whether the appellants-claimants in C.M.A. No. 274 of 2001 are entitled for any enhancement of the award.
5.1 Before the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants have claimed that the deceased was a merchant dealing in artificial and natural gems, stones and diamonds at Indonesia importing materials from India and other countries and that the claimants had been receiving money from Indonesia to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 or Rs. 3,00,000 per year for their annual expenditure. But, the Tribunal rejected the said claim of the claimants on the basis of the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary and held that since even as per the provisions of the Act, an annual income of a non-earning member can be fixed at Rs. 15,000, considering the age and occupation of the deceased, fixed the monthly income at Rs. 3,000 and accordingly, has determined a sum of Rs. 3,36,000 towards loss of income to the family after deducting one-third towards personal expenses. But, as seen from the claim petition and the evidence of the brother of the deceased, PW 1, the deceased was a merchant dealing in artificial stones, gems and diamonds at Indonesia and hence, we feel that an amount of Rs. 6,000 can be fixed as the monthly income of the deceased and accordingly, applying the multiplier of 14 and deducting one-third towards personal expenses, it works out to Rs. 6,72,000.
5.2 It is seen that the Tribunal awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 9,500 towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to estate, which, in our opinion, is not at all justified. Deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of accident and hence, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 30,000 could be awarded towards loss of consortium to the wife. Similarly, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards loss of love and affection to the four children of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 8,000 for funeral expenses. Totally, the award of the Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 3,45,500 is enhanced to a total sum of Rs. 7,50,000 as per the following heads:
Loss of pecuniaryExpenses Rs. 6,72,000Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000Loss of love andaffection to four children Rs. 40,000Funeral expenses Rs. 8,000____________Rs. 7,50,000____________
6.1 As far as the claim of the appellant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 is concerned, we find from the order of the Tribunal that the claimant had suffered permanent disability and to prove the same, he examined the doctor who treated him as PW 3. PW 3 had certified that the claimant suffered 52 per cent permanent disability and issued certificate, Exh. A36. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, the claimant suffered a fracture on his right hand and taking note of the ailment suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards permanent disability, which being proper and justifiable, we do not wish to interfere.
6.2 The Tribunal, on the basis of the other materials available, viz., Exhs. A21, A22 and A34, discharge summary; Exhs. A25 and A26, certificate and prescription issued by an ortho doctor; Exhs. A27 to A30 medical bills; Exh. A35 doctor's bill and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000, which also, in our opinion, is quite reasonable, as the same is purely based on the materials. Further, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimant that he was earning Rs. 25,000 per month, since the claimant referred himself as pauper and paid only Re. 1 towards court-fee and accordingly, did not award any amount towards loss of income. Considering the nature of treatment undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 under each head towards transport expenses and extra nourishment, which also do not warrant interference.
6.3 In view of the above, we do not see any reason to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to appellant-claimant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 and accordingly, the same stands confirmed.
As regards the rate of interest, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya : AIR2005SC2985 , the rate of interest at 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5 per cent per annum.
7. In the result, the appellants-claimants in C.M.A. No. 274 of 2001 is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000, under the heads already indicated above, at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum and the award of the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 stands confirmed except reducing the rate of interest from 12 per cent per annum to 7.5 per cent per annum The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.