CoramThe Honourable Mr v. D. Vasantha2.D. Parvathi3.D. Kumar4.D. Anandan5.D. Anjalakshi6.D. Sudhakar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 31-8-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARC.M.A.No.569 of 2000Cross Objection No.40 of 2001The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Villupuram Division-III) Ltd.,Kancheepuram - 631 501...Appellant in CMA No.569/2000 & Respondent in Cross Objection/RespondentVs.1.D. Vasantha2.D. Parvathi3.D. Kumar4.D. Anandan5.D. Anjalakshi6.D. Sudhakar...Respondents in CMA No.569/2000& Cross Objectors/Petitioner(R-6 in CMA No.569/2000 and 6th Cross Objectordeclared as major and guardian discharged videorder of this Court dated 14.2.202 in CMP Nos.22722& 22723 of 2001)C.M.A.No.569 of 2000 and Cross Objection No.40 of 2001 are preferredagainst the order dated 17.3.1999 in M.C.O.P.No.67 of 1997 on the file ofthe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Thiruvallur.For Appellant in CMA.569/2000:Mr.A.Babu& Respondent in Cross ObjectionFor Respondents in CMA.569/2000:Mr.R.Selvakumar& Cross Objectors https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENTC.M.A.No.569 of 2000 has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Limited, Kancheepuram,challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal inM.C.O.P.No.67 of 1997 dated 17.3.1999 ordering compensation ofRs.2,19,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. The claimants havefiled the Cross Objection No.40 of 2001 claiming the disallowed portion oftheir claim of Rs.2,81,000/-.2.As could be seen from the award of the Tribunal, on 23.10.1996at 10.45 a.m. one Durai Asari was walking on the left side of theTiruvallur-Tiruthani road and he was hit by the Transport Corporation busbearing registration No.TN-21-N-0085, which was driven by its driver in arash and negligent manner and due to the said accident, the said DuraiAsari died on the spot. A criminal case was registered and charge sheetwas also filed against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus on15.11.1996. The claimants viz., the widow, mother, sons and daughter ofthe deceased Durai Asari have filed the claim petition claimingcompensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, contending that the deceased was a skilledCarpenter, who was undertaking contract work for the buildings and wasmanufacturing household furnitures and thereby was earning a sum ofRs.6,000/- per month and was aged 45 years at the time of the accident.3.The appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim petitionby contending that the driver of the Transport Corporation was not drivingthe bus in rash and negligent manner and when the bus was nearing KuppammaChatram, a lorry was coming on the opposite side and when the bus wascrossing the lorry, the deceased suddenly crossed the road, withoutobserving the traffic rules and without noticing the Transport Corporationbus, which was proceeding in its lane and thereby the accident hadoccurred.4.The widow of the deceased Durai Asari was examined as PW-1 andone Ravi, eye witness to the occurrence was examined as PW-2 and Exs.P-1to P-4 were marked on the side of the Claimants. The driver of theTransport Corporation bus was not examined and only the conductor of thebus, who has not witnessed the accident was examined as RW-1. No documentwas produced on behalf of the Transport Corporation.5.The Tribunal considered the FIR, which was registered at theinstance of Village Administrative Officer and the charge sheet filedagainst the driver of the Transport Corporation bus under sections 279 and304A IPC, which were marked as Exs.P-1 and P-3 and found that the accidenthad occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TransportCorporation bus and therefore the Transport Corporation is liable to paycompensation. The defence raised by the appellant/Transport Corporationthat only due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident had occurred https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was not proved before the Tribunal. On behalf of the TransportCorporation, the evidence given was by the conductor, who has not seen themanner in which the accident had occurred. On the other hand, PW-2 theeye witness deposed that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in arash and negligent manner. Hence the findings given by the Tribunal arelegal and valid and no exception could be taken to the said findings. 6.Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, theclaimants have stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and wasaged 45 years at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal assessedthe daily income of the deceased as Rs.50/- and the monthly income asRs.1,500/- and after deducting personal expenses of 1/3rd a sum ofRs.1,000/- was taken as contribution to the claimants herein. TheTribunal adopting multiplier 12 arrived at a figure of Rs.1,44,000/-towards loss of income.7.The learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors submittedthat the amount arrived at by the Tribunal is too low in view of thespecial nature of work performed by the deceased as an experiencedCarpenter and therefore minimum of Rs.100/- per day shall be taken as hisdaily income and Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counselalso submitted that the multiplier 12 adopted by the Tribunal is on thelower side and the multiplier 15 should have been adopted considering theage of the deceased as 45 years.8.Considering the said submission and having regard to the factthat the deceased was a skilled labourer/an experienced Carpenter, I am ofthe view that a sum of Rs.3,000/- can be taken as monthly income of thedeceased. After deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses the contribution canbe fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month. I also deem it proper to adopt 14multiplier as the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accidentand so calculating the loss of income can be arrived at Rs.3,36,000/-(Rs.2000 x 12 x 14).9.The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss ofconsortium to the wife and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love andaffection to other claimants. I am of the view that the said amounts arejust and proper. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards funeralexpenses and hence a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeralexpenses. Thus the Claimants/cross objectors are entitled to a totalcompensation of Rs.4,16,000/-.10.The Tribunal has ordered 12% interest. As the accident hadoccurred in the year 1996, I am of the view that ordering 12% interest ison the higher side and the same is reduced to 9% per annum from the dateof the claim petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.Out of the compensation now awarded, the first claimant/widow ofthe deceased is entitled to get Rs.1,16,000/- with proportionate interestand costs. The claimants 2 to 6/respondents 2 to 6 herein are entitled toget Rs.60,000/- each with proportionate interest. On deposit of theentire compensation amount by the Transport Corporation, the claimants arepermitted to withdraw their respective share.12.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed andthe cross objection is allowed in part with the above modification in theaward of the Tribunal dated 17.3.1999 in MCOP.No.67 of 1997. No costs.vrSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Subordinate Judge,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Thiruvallur.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court,Madras-1404+ One cc to Mr. R. Salvakumar, Advocate sR 54637VRK (co)sg 01/10/07Judgment in C.M.A.No.569 of 2000 & Cross Objection No.40/200131-8-2007