The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,No.12, Ramakrishna Main Road,Salem-7 v. Perumal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 4.11.2008CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.1799 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,No.12, Ramakrishna Main Road,Salem-7. .. Appellant/ respondent Vs.1. Perumal2. Saroja ... respondents/ petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against theaward and decree dated 21.1.2008 in MCOP No. 83 of 2005 on thefile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Districtand Sessions Court), Salem. For Appellant : Mrs. B. VijayalakshmiFor Respondents : No AppearanceJUDGMENTTransport Corporation has filed this appeal challengingthe award dated 21.1.2008 in MCOP No. 83 of 2005 on the file ofthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District andSessions Court), Salem. Even though the respondents were served on20.7.2008, there is no appearance on their behalf. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. One Ranjeethkumar,aged 19 years, a bachelor, working in a STD booth, was travellingin the transport corporation bus which hit against an electric poston a bridge as a result of which, the deceased fell down from thebus. He sustained grievous injuries and died. Along with him,other passengers also suffered injuries. A case was registeredagainst the transport corporation bus driver in Cr. No. 660 of 2004under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- wasclaimed as compensation by the mother, aged 40 years and the fatheraged 46 years. According to the claimants, the income of thedeceased was Rs.3,000/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim petition, the mother wasexamined as P.W. 1. One Mohanraj was examined as P.W. 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Documents Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of theF.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the M.V.I. Report. Ex.A3 is the copyof the charge sheet. Ex.A4 is the copy of the post mortemcertificate. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before Tribunalone Manimuthu, officer of the transport corporation was examined asR.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on recordand the fact that the bus hit against the post on the bridge whichcaused the serious accident, in which, several passengers sufferedinjuries and one person died, the Tribunal found that thenegligence was on the part of the driver of the appellanttransport corporation bus and fixed the liability of the appellantto compensate the claimants. The said finding is not in disputedand the same is confirmed. 5. As regards compensation, the Tribunal decided theissue from paragraph 11 on wards in answer to point No.2. Basedon the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the plea that the deceased wasworking in a STD Booth, the income of the deceased was fixed atRs.2,700/- p.m. as against Rs.3,000/- claimed by the claimants.From this 1/3rd was deducted and the contribution to thedependents was taken at Rs.1800/- p.m. Based on the age of thedeceased and his mother, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier anddetermined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.3,45,600/-(Rs.1800/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,45,600/-) In all, the Tribunal grantedthe following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of7.5% p.a.Sl.No. HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal 1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.3,45,600/-2Loss of love and affection Rs. 16,000/-3Funeral expensesRs. 2,500/-TotalRs.3,64,100/-wrongly calculatedas Rs.3,63,100/-6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel forthe appellant is that the multiplier of 16 taken in the case ofdeath of a bachelor earning member is on the higher side andtherefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.7. The respondents have been served through Court on20.7.2008. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, none appeared forthe respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. In the present case, the deceased is a bachelorearning member. The possibility of the deceased getting marriedand the contribution to the family getting reduced is always there.In such view of the matter, the multiplier 16 cannot be adopted inthe present case. The income of the deceased was claimed asRs.3,000/-p.m. However, the Tribunal has taken the income atRs.2,700/- p.m. Admittedly, the deceased was working in the STDBooth. 9. The following decisions will have to be kept in mindwhile fixing the income of the deceased:-(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. -Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was)observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In thatcase, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. -Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was ofthe view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month.In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. 10. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased wastaken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened inthe year 2004. Considering the same, the income of the deceased,can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. The contribution to thefamily after deducting 1/3rd would be Rs.2,000/-. In view of thedecision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - BidyaDhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 , theproper multiplier in the case of deceased bachelor earning memberwill be 12. Therefore, the loss of pecuniary benefits isdetermined in a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.2000/- x 12 x 12 =Rs.2,88,000/-). The claimants will be entitled to a further sumof Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. A sum of Rs.2,500/- isgranted towards transport expenses. The mother aged 40 years andfather aged 46 years have lost their son at very young age.Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each towardsloss of love and affection as against Rs. 16,000/- granted.Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.Head Amountgranted bythe Tribunal Amountgranted bythis Court 1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.3,45,600/-Rs.2,88,000/-2Loss of love and affection Rs. 16,000/-Rs. 30,000/-3Funeral expensesRs. 2,500/-Rs. 5,000/-4Transport expenses ---Rs. 2,500/-TotalRs.3,64,100/-wronglycalculated asRs.3,63,100/-Rs.3,25,500/-11. Since the accident happened in the year 2004 and theaward was passed in the 2008, the interest granted by the Tribunalat 7.5% stands confirmed. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partlyallowed.(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 3,25,500/-from Rs.3,63,100/-.(ii) The interest at 7.5% granted by the Tribunal isconfirmed.(iii) Pursuant to the interim order dated 1.7.2008, a sum ofRs.3,20,000/- has been deposited.(iv) Out of the award, The first claimant/ father is entitledto a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest and the second claimant/mother is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest andcosts. (v) The appellant seeks four weeks time to deposit thebalance amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, theclaimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order ofthis Court.(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.(vii) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raTo1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court), Salem. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section,High Court, Chennai-104.+ 1 CC to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi,Advocate,SR.61372 CMA No. 1799 of 2008GV(CO)EM/13.2.09