The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,Salem v. Vellaiammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.658 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,Salem. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.Vellaiammal,2.Uma,3.Kumar. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.7.2005passed in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2004 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Sub Court), Attur.For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran -----JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 28.7.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2004on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court),Attur. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on14.2.2004. The deceased Varatharaj, aged 40 years, a coolie, wasriding his bicycle on Attur-Cuddalore Main Road. The bus belongingto the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in arash and negligent manner, hit the said Varatharaj. In thataccident, the said Varatharaj died on the spot. The wife aged 38years, daughter 21 years and son aged 19 years filed a claim forcompensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased wasearning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Thathaiyan, the eye witness to theaccident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked onbehalf of the claimants, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR dated 14.2.2004,Ex.A-2 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 14.2.2004,Ex.A-3 is the copy of rough sketch dated 14.2.2004,Ex.A-4 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 15.2.2004,Ex.A-5 is the copy of charge sheet dated and Ex.A-6 is the legal heir certificate dated 29.4.2004.Mr.Balasubramanian, the conductor of the appellant transportcorporation bus, the respondent before the Tribunal was examined asR.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellanttransport corporation. 4. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal discussed theissue in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the award in answer to point No.1.Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1, rough sketch Ex.A-3, Motor VehicleInspector's Inspection Report Ex.A-4 and charge sheet filed againstthe driver of the bus Ex.A-5, and the oral evidence of P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, the Tribunal held that due to the rash andnegligent driving by the driver of the appellant transportcorporation bus, the accident happened. The evidence of R.W.1 didnot appeal to the Tribunal on merits as the driver of the bus was notexamined. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability tocompensate the claimants on the appellant transport corporation.The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellanttransport corporation and the liability fixed on the appellanttransport corporation bus is not seriously disputed by the counselfor the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. The onlycontention seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant is onthe quantum of compensation.5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, thesame was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 11 to 14 of theaward in answer to point No.2. Based on the post-mortem certificateEx.A-2, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 40 years. Inthe petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum ofRs.5,000/- per month as collie. The wife of the deceased stated inher evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- permonth by doing work in a mill and also doing agricultural work and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ spraying pesticides. Since, no document was filed with regard toincome of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of thedeceased at Rs.75/- per day (i.e.) Rs.2,250/- per month (i.e.)Rs.27,000/- per year. Based on the age of the deceased said to be40 years and in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the MotorVehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and fixed thepecuniary loss of income to the family of the deceased atRs.4,32,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,32,000/-). After deducting1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed asum of Rs.2,88,000/- as pecuniary loss to the family of thedeceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventionalheads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts ascompensation with 9% interest as follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependentsof the deceasedRs.2,88,000/-2Loss of love and affection to the daughterand the son on the death of their fatherRs. 10,000/-3Loss of consortium to the wife on the deathof her husbandRs. 10,000/-4Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/-5Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/-TotalRs.3,12,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that themultiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is high. He also contendedthat the interest granted at 9% is excessive. Therefore, the quantumof compensation has to be reduced.7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined tointerfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention andto reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 14.2.2004. The deceasedwas aged 40 years at the time of accident.(ii) In the petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning asum of Rs.5,000/- per month as collie. The wife of the deceasedstated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum ofRs.6,000/- per month by doing work in a mill and also doingagricultural work and spraying medicine. Since, no document wasfiled with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixedthe income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day (i.e.) Rs.2,250/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per month, which is low and the same is not commensurate withminimum wages or living wages at the time of accident. (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. - Lathareported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was)observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. 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 theview that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. Inthat case, the accident happened in the year 1999. 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 happenedin the year 2004. Considering the same, the income of thedeceased, can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month at the time ofaccident. (iv) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the daughter and son is very meagre.(v) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to thewife of the deceased is very low.(vi) The sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards transport expenses andthe sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards funeral expenses arereasonable and the same are confirmed.(vii) Since the income fixed is low affecting the total compensationand the compensation granted for loss of love and affection to thetwo children and loss of consortium to the wife is also very low,the marginally higher multiplier "16" adopted in this case andalso the marginally higher interest granted at 9% will justify theaward.(viii) Considering all the above aspects the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- by the Tribunal does notrequire any further reduction. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted andon such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same asper order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsToThe Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Attur. + 1 CC To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate SR NO.10587 Judgment inC.M.A.No.658 of 2009GV {CO}TP/20.4.2009.