The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,Villupuram Division-IVillupuram v. Malarkodi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.669 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,Villupuram Division-IVillupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.Malarkodi,2.Minor Sivasakthiya,rep. by his guardian and grand mother1st respondent 3.Vennammal alias Annamalai,4.Rajiv Gandhi,5.Minor Elabharathi. (Minor respondent No.5 isrepresented by his motherand guardian the 1 respondent)(2nd respondent is unnecessary party hence given up) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 9.3.2004passed in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2003 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3),Virhudhachalam.For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran ----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 9.3.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2003on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (AdditionalDistrict Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Virhudhachalam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on15.2.2002. The deceased Thiruvengadam, said to be aged 40 years, acattle broker and engaged in vegetable vending and agriculturalwork, was walking on the road. The bus belonging to the appellanttransport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligentmanner, hit the said Thiruvengadam. In that accident, the saidThiruvengadam died on the spot. The wife aged 35 years, granddaughter (age not given) and three sons aged 20, 19 and 11 yearsfiled a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating thatthe deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Arumugam, the eye witness to the accident,was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of theclaimants, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR dated 15.2.2002,Ex.A-2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report,Ex.A-3 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 15.2.2002,Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of Vehicle Registration Certificate,Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of vehicle licence, Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of replacement certificate of the Government bus andEx.A-7 is the copy of driving licence.Mr.Jeyapaul, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus,the respondent before the Tribunal was examined as R.W.1. Nodocument was marked on behalf of the appellant transportcorporation. 4. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal discussed theissue in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the award. Based on the F.I.R.Ex.A-1 and the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident,the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving by thedriver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the accidenthappened. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal onmerits. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability to compensatethe claimants 1 and 3 to 5 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 appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transport corporation bus cannot be and is not seriously disputed bythe counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same isconfirmed. The only contention seriously disputed by the counsel forthe appellant is on the quantum of compensation.5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, thesame was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the award.Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-3, the Tribunal fixed theage of the deceased at 60 years. Though the claimants stated thatthe deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month in vegetablevending, cattle brokering and agricultural work, the Tribunal fixedthe income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.36,000/-per annum. Based on the age of the deceased at 60 years and interms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,the Tribunal adopted 8 multiplier and fixed the loss of income of thedeceased at Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 8 = Rs.2,88,000/-). Afterdeducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunalfixed a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- as pecuniary loss to the family ofthe deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation underconventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the followingamounts as compensation with 9% interest as follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependentsof the deceasedRs.1,92,000/-2Loss of love and affection to the threechildren on the death of their father(Rs.5,000/- each)Rs. 15,000/-3Loss of consortium to the wife on the deathof her husbandRs. 15,000/-TotalRs.2,22,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that themultiplier of 8 adopted by the Tribunal is high. Therefore, thequantum of 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 15.2.2002. The deceasedwas aged 60 years at the time of accident.(ii) It was claimed that the deceased was engaged in vegetablevending, agricultural work and cattle brokering. His incomewas claimed at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month which is low andthe same is not commensurate with minimum wages or living wagesat 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. -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 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 2002. Considering the same, the income of thedeceased, can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month as he was engagedin vegetable vending, agricultural work and cattle brokering.(iv) The sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the three children is very meagre.(v) No amount was granted towards funeral expenses.(vi)Since the income taken is low and the compensation grantedfor loss of love and affection to the three children is also verylow and no compensation is granted towards funeral expenses, themarginally higher multiplier "8" adopted in this case isjustified.(vii) With regard to interest granted at 9%, no objection was raisedin the appeal grounds.(viii) Considering the above aspects the total compensation grantedin a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- by the Tribunal does not require anyfurther reduction. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seekseight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 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 Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Virhudhachalam. +1cc to Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate Sr 8413SSR(CO)km/18.4.C.M.A.No.669 of 2009