NALLAMMAL Vs. RANGASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23/3/2017, when one Arumugam, an Employee of the Municipality, was riding his Cycle for discharging certain official responsibilities, he was fatally knocked down by a rashly driven Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-34-P-6193. The Motorcycle belongs to the First Respondent and was insured with the Second Respondent.

(2.) Arumugam was working as a Sanitary Worker at Thiruchencode Municipality. For arriving at the Compensation amount payable to the Claimants before it, the Tribunal was presented with multiple documents quoting different age for the deceased, and after analysing them all, the Tribunal reckoned the age of Arumugham at 58 years and 8 months, based on his Service record. As per Ex.P19, he was drawing a Monthly Salary of Rs.21,537.00 In a Claim Petition preferred by his heirs, the Tribunal considered Rs.21,537.00 as his income, deducted the professional tax payable and added 15% towards Future Prospects and arrived at a sum of Rs.2,94,854,.00 and applied Split Multiplier for determining the Compensation payable to the Claimants. Accordingly reckoning the net Annual Income including the Future Prospects at Rs.2,94,854.00 the Tribunal applied 9 as the Multiplier for 2 years, which is up to his age of Superannuation at 60 years and the Monthly Income of the Victim at Rs.9,000.00 notionally for a period of seven years, deducted 1/3 towards the Personal Expenses of the Victim and arrived at the net annual value of dependency of the Claimants at Rs.8,97,138.00After adding other Conventional heads of Compensation, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,46,032,.00 and the break-up is as below:

(3.) Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sum awarded by the M.A.C.T., the Claimants are now before this Court. Heard both sides. The principal contention of the Counsel for the Appellants is that the Trial Court ought not to have applied Split Multiplier method for determining the value of dependency of the Claimants, for which purpose, he relied on the ratio in K.R. Madhusudhan and others v. Administrative Officer and another, 2011 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC) : 2011 (4) SCC 689, where the Court has held: