TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. K VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident against the award of rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the claimants who are the wife and minor sons of the deceased. THE memorandum of cross-objection is filed by the claimants claiming a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000. Subsequently a petition has been filed by the claimants in C. M. P. No. 5797 of 1993 for amendment of the original petition by increasing the total claim to Rs. 15,50,000.

(2.) THE husband of the first claimant by name Kannaiah was assistant Divisional Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. On 4. 4. 1984, when he was proceeding on official duty from Madurai to Srivilliputhur. the jeep by which he was travelling rolled down into a ditch by the side of the road on account of rash and negligent driving of the same. THE jeep was lying on its side in the ditch which caused death of the deceased. THE driver of the jeep escaped with minor injuries and Assistant Engineer travelling in the same jeep was thrown out and became unconscious and he recovered later. According to the claimants, but for the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the driver, the accident would not have occurred. In the original petition, the claimants made a claim for a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000. THEy have mentioned the salary which was drawn by the deceased on the date of death viz. 4. 4. 1984 as Rs. 2,520 p. m. THE deceased was aged about 40 according to the petition and he would have been in service till 30. 6. 2002. THE original petition gives the break-up figures of the salary which the deceased could have earned from 4. 4. 1984 to 30. 6. 2002 with periodical increases. THE total comes to Rs. 6,85,080. Besides the said amount, a claim was made that the deceased would have lived upto the age of 90 and he would have carried on business after his retirement for atleast a period of 20 years and earned more than Rs. 2,00,000. Thus the total loss of income was worked out to be Rs. 8,85,080. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was claimed as compensation for mental agony of the claimants. THE total a Rs. 9,35,080 was restricted to Rs. 8,00,000 in the prayer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contends that there is no evidence whatever on record to say that the deceased would have got increase in salary or that he would have been promoted to a higher post. It is submitted that promotion to the higher post is not automatic. The higher post is a selection post. LEARNED counsel contends that the tribunal has only speculated in taking the view that the deceased would have obtained the promotion and would have earned Rs. 3,000 p. m. as salary. It is further argued that the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income derived by the deceased towards his personal expenses. It is further pointed out that the deceased has a scooter for his duties and he would have certainly incurred some amount for his personal expenses. It is argued that no amount is deducted from the total loss of income for payment in one lump sum. According to the learned counsel those deductions are made while arriving at the compensation which is payable to the claimants. The compensation which is awarded by the tribunal is very much low and the award of the tribunal is unsustainable.