SWAMINATHAN AND ANR. Vs. MARI AMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents before the Claims Tribunal, Madras are the Appellants. The Respondents in this appeal are two of the three claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 117 of 1972. That petition was filed under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - on the ground that one Chellammal, wife of the deceased first claimant and mother of the Respondents herein, was killed as a result of the van, T.M.C. 6507 belonging to the first Appellant and insured with the second Appellant, driven rashly and negligently on Mount Road near the Guindy Railway Station on 21.1.1972 at about 8.15 p.m., knocking her down as a result of which she sustained severe injuries and died subsequently. Compensation was claimed under various heads and the age of the deceased was given as 45 years in the petition. The first Appellant, whose counter -statement was adopted by the second Appellant, denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the van and contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased woman and that the compensation claimed was excessive and fanciful.

(2.) THE Appellants did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal. On the evidence of P.W. 4, an eye -witness, and P.W. 3, the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, the Tribunal found that the accident was only as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the van by the first Appellant's driver and held that the Appellants were liable to pay compensation to the Respondents and the deceased first claimant. The Tribunal rejected the case of the Respondents that the deceased was a maid -servant working in three houses and earning Rs. 60/ - per mensem and found that she was only a house wife who was not earning anything and that the claimants were entitled to compensation only for loss of expectation of life. Taking the age of the deceased as 45 years, the Tribunal fixed the compensation under that head at Rs. 10,000/ -.

(3.) THERE is no satisfactory evidence to show that the deceased was working as a maid -servant in any house and earning anything. There is, therefore, no reason to disagree with the Tribunal that she was only a housewife who was not earning anything and that compensation can be awarded, in this case, only for loss of expectation of life. But, it appears to me that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, viz. Rs. 10,000/ - is excessive. In Corporation of Madras v. Thangammal : 1966 A.C.J. 148 which arose out of a fatal accident to a child aged 4 years, Venkatadri J. has fixed the compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life at only Rs. 5,000/ -. In T.V. Gnanavelu v. D.P. Kannayya : 1969 A.C.J. 435 which arose out of a fatal accident to a sixty year old woman, Ismail J., has fixed the compensation under this head at Rs. 5,000/ -. Having regard to the fact that the deceased in this case was only 45 years old could be expected to have lived for some more years than the woman concerned in T.V. Gnanavelu v. D.P. Kannayya : 1969 A.C.J. 435. I am of the opinion that the compensation for loss of expectation of life should have been fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 7,500/ -. The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent of Rs. 2,500/ -. The result is that the compensation for loss of expectation of life is fixed at Rs. 7,500/ -. This amount will carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim. There will be no order as to costs.