High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
C.Manivasagam v. R.Jaganathan - C.M.A. No.400 of 2002  RD-TN 1845 (9 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.06.2007
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU
C.M.A. No.400 of 2002
2. Nirmala ..Appellants Vs
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Tiruppur Divisional Office,
Kumaran Shopping Complex,
Coimbatore District. ..Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.232 of 2001 dated 07.11.2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Erode. For Appellant : N.Manokaran
For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Mr.R.Sivakumar for (R2) J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.232 of 2001 dated 07.11.2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Erode, awarding a compensation of Rs.70,000/-.
2. There is no dispute with regard to the responsibility of causing the accident by the first respondent vehicle driver and the insurance coverage of his vehicle with the second respondent Insurance Company.
3. The deceased Gopalakrishnan, aged 14 years met with a fatal accident on 13.12.2000 while he was travelling as pillion rider in a motor cycle from Tiruppur to Uthukuli. The lorry belonging to the first respondent dashed against the two wheeler in which the said Gopalakrishnan was travelling, causing injuries to him. From the post mortem certificate, it transpires that the deceased was aged 14 years at the time of the accident. The oral evidence on record shows that he was studying eighth standard in a Matriculation School and was selling Amway goods and earning Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per month. It is also stated that he was the only son for their parents, namely the claimants. The School Certificate has also been produced before the Tribunal. His age was supported by the School Certificate. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- as compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit before this Court that in identical case, the Apex Court, in a decision reported in 2004(2)TN MAC 262(SC) [Manju Devi and another vs. Musafir Paswan and another] has formulated principles that even though the deceased is a non earning member of teen aged individual, notional income of Rs.15,000/- must be taken into consideration and a multiplier of 15 should be adopted and hence, Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded to the claimants, who are the parents. The operative portion of the said decision goes thus: "4. In the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, reported in (1996)4 SCC 362, it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method.
5. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000/-"
5. Relying upon the principles laid down in the above said decision, a learned single Judge of this Court also granted an award for a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, in a similar matter which has been reported in 2006(5)CTC 46 [M.lakshmi and others vs. D.Chandran and another]. The relevant passages of the said decision have been culled out as follows: "6. When the Hon'ble Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation in the case of a death of a 13 year old boy, the principles laid down in that case has to be applied in this case also.
7. There is no dispute that the deceased boy was aged 16 years on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above said decision, it will be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-".
6. Guided by the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, since it is an identical case, it is concluded that the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- for the death of their son. As observed in the said decision, a notional income of Rs.15,000/- is considered and multiplier 15 is applied.
7. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, awarding a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- payable and be deposited by the second respondent before the Tribunal, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 7.5 for enhanced compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The first and second appellants are entitled to withdraw Rs.65,000/- and Rs.90,000/- respectively. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs. gms
The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal
(Second Additional District Court)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.