KARUPAI PONNANNAN CHIRANGAN Vs. MAGDUM MASUDDIN SAYYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PONNAN Chirangan Madrasi was a young man of robust health employed with a contractor Balan as a helper. Balan had taken a contract with the N.R.C. Company at Mohane, Taluke Kalyan, and used to pay about Rs. 700/- per month to Ponnan as well as some overtime, allowance. Due to the alleged negligence and rashness on the part of Megdum Sayyed, driver of a lorry belonging to Maharashtra Bricks Manufacturing Co., Ponnan was killed and his widow and minor son preferred Claim No. 70 of 1981 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane. The Tribunal calculated the quantum of damages at Rs. 24,000/-. deducted 10 per cent for lump sum payment and awarded Rs. 21,600/-. against which the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE only point that arises in this appeal is regarding the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. No one contested the claim before the Tribunal and the widow of Ponnan led evidence by filing an affidavit. According to Karupai, the widow, the contractor Balan used to pay the deceassed Rs. 700/- per month and the deceased used to spend Rs. 500/- out of his salary over the maintenance of his family after keeping Rs. 200/- for himself for his personal expenses. The Tribunal did not believe in the version of the widow that the wages which Ponnan was earning as a helper could be as high as Rs. 20/- per day and came to a round figure of Rs. 400/- per month as wages. The Tribunal deducted 50 per cent of these earnings as being required by the deceased for his personal expenses, took a multiplier of 10 years and came to a figure of Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, we do not see any justification for taking such a low multiplier as 10 years and feel that a multiplier of 15 years would have met the ends of justice.

(3.) APPEAL succeeds in to with costs and the Award of the Tribunal is modified by substituting the figure of Rs. 46,600/- for the figure of Rs. 21,600/- appearing in the second line of the order. After the amount is deposited in the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall pass orders regarding apportionment of the amount as well as its deposit and investment in consonance with the observations of this Court in Nav. Bharat Builders v. Smt. Pyarabal . Rest of the Award is confirmed.