The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam v. Radhakrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.1.2009CORAM:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKARC.M.A. No. 2513 of 2008........The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam. .. Appellant/ respondentVs.1. Radhakrishnan2. Selvalakshmi3. Muthuraman4. Minor Murugananthan5. Minor Parthiban(4th & 5th petitioners are rep. bytheir father and guardian Radhakrishnan).. Respondents/PetitionersAppeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against theaward and decree dated 13.1.2005 made in MCOP No. 920 of 2003 on thefile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional DistrictCourt) Chidambaram. For Appellant : Ms.GeethaFor Respondents: Mr. S.Kumaradevan - R1, 2------JUDGMENTThe Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challengingthe award dated 13.1.2005 made in MCOP No. 920 of 2003 on the file ofthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court)Chidambaram. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in thiscase happened on 27.4.2002. The deceased Venkatesan, aged 25 years,was walking on the road when he was hit by the appellant transportcorporation bus and in that accident, he died. The father aged 55years, mother aged 40 years, brother aged 20 years and two minorbrothers aged 17 years and 14 years filed the claim for a sum ofRs.8,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceasedwas Rs.3,000/- p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Senthil Kumar, the eye witness, was examinedas P.W.2. One Kumaravelu was examined as P.W.3 and Ragunathan, ownerof the lottery agency, was examined as P.W.4. Documents Exs. A1 toA8 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was let in onbehalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofthe appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of thetransport corporation to compensate the claimant is not in disputeand the same is confirmed. 5. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal based on theoral and documentary evidence, fixed the income of the deceased atRs.2083/- p.m. equivalent to Rs.25,000/- p.a. of which Rs.5,000/- wasdeducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting 17multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum ofRs.3,40,000/-. ( Rs.20,000/- x 17 = Rs.3,40,000/-) In addition, theTribunal granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, theTribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interestat the rate of 9% p.a.Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs. 3,40,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-3Transport expensesRs. 5,000/-4Loss of love and affectionRs. 20,000/-TotalRs.3,70,000/-6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel forthe appellant is that the 17 multiplier is on the higher side andtherefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.7. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other handpleaded that the quantum of compensation is just and reasonable andneed not be reduced.8. The deceased in this case is a bachelor earning member.The income at the time of death in the year 2002, has been fixed asRs.2,083/- whereas, the living wage will be slightly more. Thedeceased was working as a lottery ticket salesman and his income issupported by the evidence of P.W.4 employer and the salarycertificate Ex.A5. He was working as a lottery ticket salesman atChidambaram municipal town. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Keeping in mind the reasons enumerated in the Apex Courtdecision in Bijoy kumar Dugar – Vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in(2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242), the multiplier of 17 cannotbe justified. However, considering the period of accident, age andoccupation of the deceased, the income in this case has to bereasonably fixed at Rs.3,000/- as claimed by the claimants. TheTribunal erred in deducting further sum of Rs.5,000/- towardspersonal expenses of the deceased when the total income fixed is verylow. Therefore, the compensation granted for loss of pecuniarybenefits has to be properly re-fixed. The income of the deceased,who died in the year 2002, as claimed can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- p.m.and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased,the contribution to the family is fixed as Rs.2,000/- p.m. equivalentto Rs.24,000/- p.a. Following the Apex Court decision in BijoyKumar's case the multiplier taken in this case has to be reducedsince the possibility of the deceased getting married and thecontribution to the dependents getting reduced is always there.Therefore, the multiplier is reduced to 13 as against 17 and the lossof pecuniary benefits to the dependents will be Rs.3,12,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-) Other amounts granted underconventional heads are not in dispute and they are confirmed.Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:-Sl.No.HeadAmountgranted bythe TribunalAmount grantedby this Court1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.3,40,000/-Rs.3,12,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-3Transport expensesRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-4Loss of love and affectionRs. 20,000/-Rs. 20,000/-TotalRs.3,70,000/-Rs.3,42,000/- 10. The appellant has not raised an issue with regard tothe rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, theinterest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. stands confirmed.11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partlyallowed as follows:-(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,42,000/- fromRs.3,70,000/-.(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands confirmed.(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant stated that entire award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount has been deposited as per the order of this Court dated18.8.2008.(iv) Out of the award amount, claimant/mother is entitled towithdraw a sum of Rs.96,000/- with interest and entire costs.claimant/father is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.96,000/- withinterest and third claimant/brother is entitled to withdraw a sumof Rs.50,000/- with interest. 4th and 5th claimants/ minor brothersare entitled to Rs.50,000/- each with interest. (v) The share of the minors 4th and 5th respondents/ 4th and 5thclaimants shall be invested in any nationalised bank proximate to theplace of the residence of the respondent/claimant for a period ofthree years and renewable thereafter till the minors attain majority.The mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw the accruedinterest in respect of the share of the minors once in three monthsdirectly from the bank and for the said purpose therespondent/claimant mother shall open a savings bank account on thesame branch and the interest amount shall be transferred to theaccount to be maintained by the mother.(vi) The nationalised bank to which the amount will bedeposited, shall intimate to the respondent/claimant of such depositand confirm the same to the Tribunal that the claimant has been dulyinformed. The Tribunal to instruct the bank accordingly. (vii) Since the deposit is in the case of minor, the Tribunal isdirected to send a report containing the details of the deposit tothe High Court on such deposit.(viii) There shall be no order as to costs. (ix) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarRaTo1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge) Chidambaram. 2.The Section Officer,M.F.Section, High Court, Madras1 cc To Mr.S.Kumaradevan, Advocate, SR.42 CMA No. 2513 of 2008CK(CO)SRA(03/02/2009)