1.G.Neela Vs. 1.Sanmugavalli - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/16363
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnDec-05-2014
JudgeV.Dhanapalan
Appellant1.G.Neela
Respondent1.Sanmugavalli
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated :05. 12.2014 coram the honourable mr.justice v.dhanapalan and the honourable ms.justice v.m.velumani c.m.a.(md)no.1451 of 2010 and m.p(md)nos.2 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 1.g.neela ... 1st appellant/ 1st respondent 2.the branch manager, united india insurance co. ltd., trapore tower 7th floor, 826, anna salai, chennai. ... 2nd appellant/ 2nd respondent vs. 1.sanmugavalli 2.minor kalairam pugalenthi 3.minor thamarai 4.muthiah 5.meena ... respondents/ petitioners (minor respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother and guardian the first respondent.) prayer: civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in m.c.o.p.no.600 of 2007, dated 06.02.2008 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum additional district judge ?. fast track court no.1, madurai. !for appellants : mr.g.prabhu rajadurai ^for respondents : mr.m.alagathevan :judgment (judgment of the court was delivered by v.dhanapalan,j.) heard mr.g.prabhu rajadurai, learned counsel for the appellants and mr.m.alagathevan, learned counsel appearing for respondents.2. the owner and the insurer of the vehicle have come before this court challenging the correctness of the award of the tribunal dated 06.02.2008 made in m.c.o.p.no.600 of 2007 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum additional district judge ?. fast track court no.1, madurai, wherein the award of rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) has been ordered, as against which, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their stand.3. it was the averment of the claimants before the tribunal that on 03.11.2006, at about 06.45 p.m., while the deceased palani was driving the bus belonging to tnstc bearing registration no.tn-58-n-0343 from north to south in alagarkoil road near goripalayam thevar statue, the lorry bearing registration no.tn-28-z-1577 was driven by its driver on panagal road, in a rash and negligent manner, without adhering to the rules and without sounding horn and dashed against the tnstc bus and pushed the bus for some distance, due to which, the deceased was thrown out of his seat and fell on the road. at that time, the wheel of the lorry ran over the limb of the deceased, who sustained crush lacerated injury of entire left lower limb exposing lacerated skin muscles, nerves, vessels and fractured bones. due to crush amputation of right lower limb below knee, it was cut and exposed lacerated vessels, nerves, muscles and bones. abrasion was noted in the chest left upper limbs, right upper limbs in a patchy manner. thereafter, he was taken to the government rajaji hospital, madurai, wherein he was declared as dead. the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration no.tn-28-z-1577. a case in cr.no.265 of 2006 was also registered under sections 279, 338 i.p.c and section 134 read with section 187 of the motor vehicles act and section 184 read with section 188 of the motor vehicles act, by madurai city traffic investigation unit-ii and the same is pending before the learned judicial magistrte no.ii, madurai, at the time of claim. according to the claimants, if the driver of the lorry exercised a litter care and caution while driving the vehicle, the accident would not have been happened. the deceased was working as a driver in the tnstc and he was looking after the agriculture operations and he earned not less than a sum of rs.11,388/- per month. at the time of the accident, the deceased was 32 years and he is a very dynamic personality and he would have lived for more than 90 years and hence, the longevity of the deceased family was very high and the future of the deceased and his family was very prosperous. because of the accident, the future of the deceased 's family went in dark. though the loss of the deceased could not be compensated in terms of money, the claimants estimated their compensation at rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) as it was just and reasonable considering the future prospects.4. no counter has been filed either by the owner of the lorry bearing registration no.tn-28-z-1577 or by the insurer of the said lorry.5. before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent/the first claimant was examined as p.w.1 and and exs.a.1 to a.7 were marked. on the side of the appellants/respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.6. the tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, awarded a sum of rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) as claimed by the claimants.7. challenging the said award passed by the tribunal, the owner and the insurer are before this court by way of this appeal on the following grounds: (i) the award is contrary to law and exorbitant; (ii) no reasons were assigned for awarding the amount as prayed for; (iii) the tribunal overlooked the principles of awarding compensation under the motor vehicles act; (iv) the estimated compensation is against the judicial pronouncements; and (v) no apportionment of negligence between the driver of the lorry and the deceased, is made having regard to the contribution of the deceased in the accident as borne by the materials.8. as to the question of liability, mr.g.prabhu rajadurai, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after looking into ex.p.1 - f.i.r, exs.p.2 and p.3 - motor vehicle inspector reports, ex.p.4 - post-mortem certificate, ex.p.5 - certified copy of the charge sheet, ex.p.6 - original salary receipt and ex.p.7 - certificate to supply of milk to the co-operative milk society, besides examining p.w.1 on the side of the claimants, has come to the conclusion that since the claim petition has been filed under sections 140 and 166 of the motor vehicles act for a direction to the appellants to pay a compensation of rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) to the claimants, on the death of the deceased palani, who met with an accident on 03.11.2006 at about 06.45 a.m., while he was driving the bus belonging to tnstc bearing registration no.tn-58-n-0343 from north to south in alagarkoil road near goripalayam thevar statue, and the lorry bearing registration no.tn-28-z-1577 was driven by its driver on panagal road, in a rash and negligent manner, without adhering to the rules and without sounding horn and dashed against the tnstc bus and thereafter, the deceased was taken to the government rajaji hospital, madurai, wherein he was declared as dead, the claimants prayed for a compensation of rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) and when the claim petition came up for final hearing on 06.02.2008, p.w.1 was called and examined and exs.p.1 to p.7 were marked on the side of the claimants and the appellants called absent and therefore, allowed the claim petition, as against which, the present appeal is filed.9. in the absence of any challenge to the liability and negligence part, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that as to the quantum of compensation, they are on appeal on various factors, in particular, they have raised objection for not deducting 1/4th of the income for the personal and living expenses of the deceased and under the head 'loss of love and affection', the tribunal has exorbitantly awarded the compensation.10. according to him, on looking into the income aspect as derived by the tribunal taking into account the monthly income of the deceased at rs.9,532.60 as per ex.p.6 - original salary receipt and after adding a sum of rs.4,766.30 towards future prospects, the total monthly loss of dependency would come to rs.14,298.90 and rounded off to rs.14,298/-. the age of the deceased was 34 years as per ex.p.4 - post-mortem certificate and multiplier '16' has to be applied and then, the total income comes to rs.1,71,576/- [rs.14,298/- x12. since the total number of claimants, viz., wife, two children and parents of the deceased, the 1/5th deduction was made, but 1/4th of the income has to be deducted. accordingly, after deducting a sum of rs.42,894/- towards 1/4th amounts towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the income would come to rs.1,28,682/- [rs.1,71,576/- - rs.42,894/-]. and after applying the multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency works out to rs.20,58,912/- [rs.1,28,682/- x16. towards loss of love and affection for four claimants, namely, two children and parents of the deceased, a sum of rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each, could be awarded and hence, it comes to rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) towards loss of love and affection. insofar as loss of consortium, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and the same has been accepted. towards funeral expenses, a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) was awarded and there is no quarrel over it and ultimately, the total compensation has to be worked out at rs.23,18,912/- and rounded off to rs.23,20,000/- (rupees twenty three lakhs and twenty thousand only).11. we have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the materials placed on record.12. now, the point that arises for consideration before this court is, as to whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable?. point:13. before the tribunal, the claimants, in support of their claim of compensation to the tune of rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only), have let in the documentary evidence, in ex.p.1 - f.i.r, exs.p.2 and p.3 - motor vehicle inspector reports, ex.p.4 - post-mortem certificate, ex.p.5 - certified copy of the charge sheet, ex.p.6 - original salary receipt and ex.p.7 - certificate to supply of milk to the co-operative milk society. but, on the side of the appellants, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.14. in the light of the principles as enunciated in the decision of the honourable supreme court in sarla verma and others v. delhi transport corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) tn mac1(sc), a sum of rs.4,766.30 has to be added towards future prospects and the deduction of 1/5th amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is not reasonable and for the above factors, the tribunal has not applied its mind to the relevant factors involved in a fatal accident and what is to be followed in awarding the compensation, taking into account the loss of dependency, future prospects and what is the multiplier to be applied, the total deduction from the income and then, non-pecuniary damages, viz, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, have not been properly looked into and on principles have been applied by the tribunal.15. accordingly, after fixing the income of the deceased at rs.14,298/- [rs.9532.60 + rs.4766.30 = rs.14.298.90]., per month, the annual loss of income would come to rs.1,71,576/- [rs.14,298/- x12 and after deducting 1/4th amount towards personal and living expenses, the income would be rs.1,28,682/- [rs.1,71,576/- - rs.42,894/-]. and applying multiplier 16, the loss of income would come to rs.20,58,912/- [rs.1,28,682/- x16 and accordingly, the loss of income is fixed at rs.20,58,912/-.16. insofar as the peculiar damages on various heads, a sum of rs.50,000/- is awarded to the first respondent/first claimant under the head 'loss of consortium'. for loss of love and affection, a sum of rs.50,000/- each, is awarded to the respondents 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5. a sum of rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.17. the break-up details of the award thus modified by this court are as under: s.no.description amount awarded by tribunal amount awarded by this court award confirmed or modified 1 loss of income 2 loss of consortium to the first claimant 3 loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 5 4 funeral expenses rs.30,00,000.00 rs. 20,58,912.00 modified. rs. 50,000.00 modified. rs. 2,00,000.00 modified. rs. 10,000.00 modified. total rs.30,00,000.00 rs.23,18,912..00 reduced by rs.6,80,000/- rounded off to rs.23,20,000.00 18. accordingly, we feel bad about the approach of the tribunal in awarding the compensation without application of mind to the factors involving just compensation and hence, we reduce the total compensation from rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) to rs.23,20,000/- (rupees twenty three lakhs and twenty thousand only), in terms of the above calculation.19. as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the well settled principles, we hold that 40% of the compensation should be given to the first respondent/wife; 20% of the compensation to the respondents 2 and 3/children, each and 10% of the compensation to the respondents 4 and 5/parents, each and it is expected that the claimants will have mutually agreed for the above apportionment without any conflict. it is also informed that the deduction of income tax has already been effected even by the department concerned, wherein the deceased was working.20. it is to be noted that this court granted an order of interim stay as prayed for, by order dated 08.10.2010 made in m.p.(md)no.2 of 2010 in c.m.a.(md)no.1451 of 2010, since it is stated that the award amount has already been deposited. therefore, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares from the deposit with accrued interest and proportionate costs, without furnishing any security, less the amount withdrawn, if any and the entire share of the respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 is directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank, in a fixed deposit, initially, for a period of two years, renewable thereafter, and the guardian of the minor claimants was permitted to withdraw the interest, once in three months, directly, from the bank. further, the appellant insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount.21. in fine, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. no costs. [v.d.p.,j.]. [v.m.v.,j.]. 05.12.2014 index : yes/no internet : yes/no rsb to : the motor accidents claims tribunal cum additional district judge ?. fast track court no.1, madurai. v.dhanapalan,j.and v.m.velumani,j.rsb c.m.a.(md)no.1451 of 2010 and m.p(md)nos.2 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 05.12.2014
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :

05. 12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.M.A.(MD)No.1451 of 2010 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 1.G.Neela ... 1st Appellant/ 1st Respondent 2.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Trapore Tower 7th Floor, 826, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... 2nd Appellant/ 2nd Respondent vs. 1.Sanmugavalli 2.Minor Kalairam Pugalenthi 3.Minor Thamarai 4.Muthiah 5.Meena ... Respondents/ Petitioners (Minor respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother and guardian the first respondent.) Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.600 of 2007, dated 06.02.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge ?. Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai. !For Appellants : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai ^For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan :JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.DHANAPALAN,J.) Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The owner and the insurer of the vehicle have come before this Court challenging the correctness of the award of the Tribunal dated 06.02.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.600 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge ?. Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, wherein the award of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) has been ordered, as against which, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their stand.

3. It was the averment of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 03.11.2006, at about 06.45 p.m., while the deceased Palani was driving the bus belonging to TNSTC bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0343 from north to south in Alagarkoil road near Goripalayam Thevar statue, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-Z-1577 was driven by its driver on Panagal road, in a rash and negligent manner, without adhering to the rules and without sounding horn and dashed against the TNSTC bus and pushed the bus for some distance, due to which, the deceased was thrown out of his seat and fell on the road. At that time, the wheel of the lorry ran over the limb of the deceased, who sustained crush lacerated injury of entire left lower limb exposing lacerated skin muscles, nerves, vessels and fractured bones. Due to crush amputation of right lower limb below knee, it was cut and exposed lacerated vessels, nerves, muscles and bones. Abrasion was noted in the chest left upper limbs, right upper limbs in a patchy manner. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, wherein he was declared as dead. The death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-Z-1577. A case in Cr.No.265 of 2006 was also registered under Sections 279, 338 I.P.C and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 184 read with Section 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by Madurai City Traffic Investigation Unit-II and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrte No.II, Madurai, at the time of claim. According to the claimants, if the driver of the lorry exercised a litter care and caution while driving the vehicle, the accident would not have been happened. The deceased was working as a driver in the TNSTC and he was looking after the agriculture operations and he earned not less than a sum of Rs.11,388/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 32 years and he is a very dynamic personality and he would have lived for more than 90 years and hence, the longevity of the deceased family was very high and the future of the deceased and his family was very prosperous. Because of the accident, the future of the deceased 's family went in dark. Though the loss of the deceased could not be compensated in terms of money, the claimants estimated their compensation at Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as it was just and reasonable considering the future prospects.

4. No counter has been filed either by the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-Z-1577 or by the insurer of the said lorry.

5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent/the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On the side of the appellants/respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

6. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as claimed by the claimants.

7. Challenging the said award passed by the Tribunal, the owner and the insurer are before this Court by way of this appeal on the following grounds: (i) the award is contrary to law and exorbitant; (ii) no reasons were assigned for awarding the amount as prayed for; (iii) The Tribunal overlooked the principles of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act; (iv) The estimated compensation is against the judicial pronouncements; and (v) No apportionment of negligence between the driver of the lorry and the deceased, is made having regard to the contribution of the deceased in the accident as borne by the materials.

8. As to the question of liability, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after looking into Ex.P.1 - F.I.R, Exs.P.2 and P.3 - Motor Vehicle Inspector Reports, Ex.P.4 - post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.5 - certified copy of the charge sheet, Ex.P.6 - original salary receipt and Ex.P.7 - certificate to supply of milk to the Co-operative Milk Society, besides examining P.W.1 on the side of the claimants, has come to the conclusion that since the claim petition has been filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a direction to the appellants to pay a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the claimants, on the death of the deceased Palani, who met with an accident on 03.11.2006 at about 06.45 a.m., while he was driving the bus belonging to TNSTC bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0343 from north to south in Alagarkoil road near Goripalayam Thevar statue, and the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-Z-1577 was driven by its driver on Panagal road, in a rash and negligent manner, without adhering to the rules and without sounding horn and dashed against the TNSTC bus and thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, wherein he was declared as dead, the claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) and when the claim petition came up for final hearing on 06.02.2008, P.W.1 was called and examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked on the side of the claimants and the appellants called absent and therefore, allowed the claim petition, as against which, the present appeal is filed.

9. In the absence of any challenge to the liability and negligence part, the learned Counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that as to the quantum of compensation, they are on appeal on various factors, in particular, they have raised objection for not deducting 1/4th of the income for the personal and living expenses of the deceased and under the head 'loss of love and affection', the Tribunal has exorbitantly awarded the compensation.

10. According to him, on looking into the income aspect as derived by the Tribunal taking into account the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,532.60 as per Ex.P.6 - original salary receipt and after adding a sum of Rs.4,766.30 towards future prospects, the total monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,298.90 and rounded off to Rs.14,298/-. The age of the deceased was 34 years as per Ex.P.4 - post-mortem certificate and multiplier '16' has to be applied and then, the total income comes to Rs.1,71,576/- [Rs.14,298/- X12. Since the total number of claimants, viz., wife, two children and parents of the deceased, the 1/5th deduction was made, but 1/4th of the income has to be deducted. Accordingly, after deducting a sum of Rs.42,894/- towards 1/4th amounts towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the income would come to Rs.1,28,682/- [Rs.1,71,576/- - Rs.42,894/-]. and after applying the multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.20,58,912/- [Rs.1,28,682/- X16. Towards loss of love and affection for four claimants, namely, two children and parents of the deceased, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each, could be awarded and hence, it comes to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards loss of love and affection. Insofar as loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and the same has been accepted. Towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) was awarded and there is no quarrel over it and ultimately, the total compensation has to be worked out at Rs.23,18,912/- and rounded off to Rs.23,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only).

11. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and the materials placed on record.

12. Now, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?. Point:

13. Before the Tribunal, the claimants, in support of their claim of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), have let in the documentary evidence, in Ex.P.1 - F.I.R, Exs.P.2 and P.3 - Motor Vehicle Inspector Reports, Ex.P.4 - post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.5 - certified copy of the charge sheet, Ex.P.6 - original salary receipt and Ex.P.7 - certificate to supply of milk to the Co-operative Milk Society. But, on the side of the appellants, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

14. In the light of the principles as enunciated in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC1(SC), a sum of Rs.4,766.30 has to be added towards future prospects and the deduction of 1/5th amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is not reasonable and for the above factors, the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the relevant factors involved in a fatal accident and what is to be followed in awarding the compensation, taking into account the loss of dependency, future prospects and what is the multiplier to be applied, the total deduction from the income and then, non-pecuniary damages, viz, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, have not been properly looked into and on principles have been applied by the Tribunal.

15. Accordingly, after fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.14,298/- [Rs.9532.60 + Rs.4766.30 = Rs.14.298.90]., per month, the annual loss of income would come to Rs.1,71,576/- [Rs.14,298/- X12 and after deducting 1/4th amount towards personal and living expenses, the income would be Rs.1,28,682/- [Rs.1,71,576/- - Rs.42,894/-]. and applying multiplier 16, the loss of income would come to Rs.20,58,912/- [Rs.1,28,682/- X16 and accordingly, the loss of income is fixed at Rs.20,58,912/-.

16. Insofar as the peculiar damages on various heads, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the first respondent/first claimant under the head 'loss of consortium'. For loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, is awarded to the respondents 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

17. The break-up details of the award thus modified by this Court are as under: S.No.Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or modified 1 Loss of income 2 Loss of consortium to the first claimant 3 Loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 5 4 Funeral expenses Rs.30,00,000.00 Rs. 20,58,912.00 Modified. Rs. 50,000.00 Modified. Rs. 2,00,000.00 Modified. Rs. 10,000.00 Modified. Total Rs.30,00,000.00 Rs.23,18,912..00 Reduced by Rs.6,80,000/- Rounded off to Rs.23,20,000.00 18. Accordingly, we feel bad about the approach of the Tribunal in awarding the compensation without application of mind to the factors involving just compensation and hence, we reduce the total compensation from Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to Rs.23,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only), in terms of the above calculation.

19. As suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties and in the light of the well settled principles, we hold that 40% of the compensation should be given to the first respondent/wife; 20% of the compensation to the respondents 2 and 3/children, each and 10% of the compensation to the respondents 4 and 5/parents, each and it is expected that the claimants will have mutually agreed for the above apportionment without any conflict. It is also informed that the deduction of income tax has already been effected even by the Department concerned, wherein the deceased was working.

20. It is to be noted that this Court granted an order of interim stay as prayed for, by order dated 08.10.2010 made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1451 of 2010, since it is stated that the award amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares from the deposit with accrued interest and proportionate costs, without furnishing any security, less the amount withdrawn, if any and the entire share of the respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 is directed to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank, in a fixed deposit, initially, for a period of two years, renewable thereafter, and the guardian of the minor claimants was permitted to withdraw the interest, once in three months, directly, from the bank. Further, the appellant Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount.

21. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. [V.D.P.,J.]. [V.M.V.,J.]. 05.12.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rsb To : The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge ?. Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai. V.DHANAPALAN,J.

AND V.M.VELUMANI,J.

rsb C.M.A.(MD)No.1451 of 2010 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 05.12.2014