The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. D. Paripuranam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.625 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 12. Ramakrishna Main Road,Salem-7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.D.Paripuranam,2.D.Megalai,3.D.Suvitha,4.Minor D.Sangeetha,5.Puvayee alias Kavitha,6.Minor Selvakumar,7.Minor Sathasivam.(Minor 4th respondent is represented by next friendand mother D.Paripuranam)(Minor respondents 6 and 7are represented by next friendand mother D.Puvayee aliasKavitha). ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 ofMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated17.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.850 of 2007 on the file of theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),Salem.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENTThe Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 17.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.850of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge), Salem. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief factsof the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happenedon 20.3.2007. The deceased T.Duraisamy, aged 49 years, anagriculturist, weaver and a businessman in cotton and milkvending, was travelling in TVS Champ on Namakkal to Salem road.The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation drivenby its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the two wheeleron the backside. In that accident, the said Duraisamy sufferedserious injuries. He died in the hospital on 25.3.2007. Thefirst wife aged 42 years and three daughters aged 21, 19 and 15years born through the first wife; the second wife aged 29 yearsand two sons aged 6 and 4 years through second wife filed aclaim for compensation in a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- stating thatthe deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month.3. In support of the claim, the first wife of thedeceased was examined as P.W.1. One Vasudevan, the eye witnessto the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-12 weremarked on behalf of the claimants, the details of which are asfollows:-Ex.A-1 is the FIR dated 20.3.2007,Ex.A-2 is the Post-mortem certificate dated 25.3.2007,Ex.A-3 is the altered FIR dated 25.3.2007,Ex.A-4 is the medical bill for Rs.23,000/- dated 24.3.2007,Ex.A-5 is the proof for doing cotton business, Ex.A-6 is the membership card for TCMS,Ex.A-7 is the membership card for Salem CMS, Ex.A-8 is the certificate from Hand loom Weavers Society,Ex.A-9 is the account book for milk supply, Ex.A-10 is the legal heir certificate,Ex.A-11 is the photocopy of ration card andEx.A-12 is the certificate for Social Welfare Membership. One Vasudevan, an officer of the appellant transport corporationwas examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of theappellant transport corporation, the respondent before theTribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. With regard to negligence, the Tribunal discussedthe issue in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the award in answer to pointNo.1. Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1 and the oral evidence ofP.W.2, the eye witness to the accident and R.W.1, the Tribunalheld that the accident happened due to rash and negligentdriving by the driver of the appellant transport corporationbus. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability on theappellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants.There is no material to controvert such finding of the Tribunalin the appeal filed by the appellant transport corporation.Therefore, the finding of negligence on the part of the driverof the appellant transport corporation cannot be and is notseriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in theappeal and the same is confirmed. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,which is the only serious issue canvassed, the same was dealtwith by the Tribunal in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the award inanswer to point No.2. Based on the post-mortem certificateEx.A-2, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 49 years.Considering the documents Exs.A-5 to A-9, the Tribunal came toconclusion that the deceased was an agriculturist, weaver and abusinessman in cotton and milk vending and fixed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixedthe loss of contribution to the family of the deceased atRs.3,300/- per month (i.e.) Rs.39,600/- per annum. Based onthe age of the deceased at 49 years, the Tribunal adopted 11multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.4,35,600/- (Rs.39,600/- x 11= Rs.4,35,600/-) towards loss of pecuniary benefits to thedependents of the deceased. The Tribunal also grantedcompensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunalgranted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interestas follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to thedependents of the deceasedRs.4,35,600/-2Funeral expenses Rs. 4,000/-3Loss of love and affection to the fivechildren on the death of their fatherRs. 20,000/-4Loss of consortium to the two wives onthe death of their husbandRs. 15,000/-5Loss of estateRs. 2,000/-6Medical expenses as per Ex.A-4Rs. 23,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe TribunalTotalRs.4,99,600/-rounded off toRs.5,00,000/-6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is thatthe income of the deceased fixed at Rs.5,000/- is excessive.She also contended that the multiplier 11 adopted by theTribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, the quantum ofcompensation is to be reduced.7. While perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Courtis not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal onthe above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensationfor the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2007. Thedeceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident.(ii) Considering the documents Exs.A-5 to A-9, the Tribunalcame to conclusion that the deceased was an agriculturist,weaver and a businessman in cotton and milk vending. It isclaimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.14,000/-.The Tribunal, however, fixed the income of the deceased atRs.5,000/- per month alone, which is very meagre.However, it can be justified in view of the oral anddocumentary evidence let in and is not refuted asunacceptable. (iii) The following decisions will have to be kept in mind whilefixing 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 hethen was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- perday. In that case, 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 of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/-per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceasedwas taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999respectively, whereas in the present case, the accidenthappened in the year 2007. Considering the same, the income https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the deceased, can be fixed atleast as Rs.6,000/- permonth as he was an agriculturist, weaver and a businessmanin cotton and milk vending for which necessary documents arefiled. (iv) The sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the five children is very very meagre.(v)Even if the multiplier of "11" adopted in this case ismarginally higher, it can be adjusted towards lesser incomefixed by the Tribunal and the compensation granted towardsloss of love and affection to the five children is very low.(vi) The compensation granted under other heads are reasonableand the same is confirmed. (vii)Considering the above aspects the totalcompensation granted in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by theTribunal does not require any further reduction as also theinterest granted at 7.5% as the accident happened in theyear 2007 and the award is of the year 2008. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellantseeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and isgranted and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled towithdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed.tsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Principal District Judge), (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Salem. CK(CO)SR/2.4.2009Judgment in C.M.A.No.625 of 2009