The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division I, Villupuram v. Kuppu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.672 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Division I,Villupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.Kuppu,2.Gowri,3.Minor Kamal,4.Minor Manjula,5.Minor Partheeban,6.Minor Divya,7.Rangammal.(Minor Respondents 3 to 6are represented by theirmother the first respondent Kuppu) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 7 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.1.2006passed in M.C.O.P.No.189 of 2004 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District District and Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi -----JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 17.1.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.189 of2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (AdditionalDistrict District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II),Tindivanam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.1.2003. The deceased Arumugam, aged 40 years, a buildingconstruction worker, was travelling in a motorcycle as a pilliondriver. The motor cycle was driven by one Mohandoss. The busbelonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by itsdriver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. In thataccident, the said Arumugam and Mohandoss died on the spot. Thewife aged 38 years, three daughters (age not given), two sons (agenot given) and a mother (age not given) filed a claim forcompensation in a sum of Rs.7 lakhs stating that the deceased wasearning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Thirunavukkarasu, 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 photocopy of FIR dated 13.1.2003,Ex.A-2 is the certified true copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 14.1.2003,Ex.A-3 is the certified true copy of post-mortem certificate dated 14.1.2003,Ex.A-4 is the copy of judgment in CC No.92 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court II, Tindivanam dated 4.8.2004,Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of family card for the year 2005-2009 and Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of judgment in MCOP No.117 of 2003 on the file of Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam dated31.3.2005.Mr.Natarajan, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus,the respondent before the Tribunal was examined as R.W.1. Ex.B-1,the certified true copy of judgment in Crl.A.No.51 of 2004 on thefile of Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam was marked on behalf ofthe appellant transport corporation. 4. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal discussed theissue in paragraphs 6 to 15 of the award in answer to point Nos.1 and2. Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1; Motor Vehicle Inspector'sInspection Report Ex.A-2; copy of judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.117of 2003 filed by the legal heirs of the other deceased Mohandoss, thedriver of the two wheeler in which the deceased in the present was apillion rider; and the oral evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to theaccident, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving bythe driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the accidenthappened. The evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B-1, the judgment of thecriminal court did not appeal to the Tribunal as the finding ofcriminal court, does not binding the Tribunal automatically. TheTribunal held that the accident happened due to rash and negligentdriving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ based on oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunalfixed the liability to compensate the claimants on the appellanttransport corporation. The finding of negligence on the part ofthe driver of the appellant transport corporation and the liabilityfixed on the appellant transport corporation bus is not seriouslydisputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the sameis confirmed. The only contention seriously disputed by the counselfor the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, thesame was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 16 to 20 of theaward in answer to point No.3. Based on the post-mortem certificateEx.A-3, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 40 years. Inthe petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum ofRs.6,000/- per month as building construction worker. The wife ofthe deceased stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning asum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing building construction work andagricultural work. P.W.2 stated that the deceased was working underhim for a daily wages of Rs.75/-. Considering the oral evidence ofP.Ws.1 and 2, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased atRs.2,500/- per month (i.e.) Rs.30,000/- per annum). Based on theage of the deceased, 40 years and in terms of second schedule toSection 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 16multiplier and fixed the loss of income of the deceased atRs.4,80,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,80,000/-). After deducting1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed thesum of Rs.3,20,000/- 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 7.5% interest as follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependentsof the deceasedRs.3,20,000/-2Loss of love and affection to threedaughters, two sons and aged mother Rs. 35,000/-3Loss of consortium to the wife on the deathof her husbandRs. 10,000/-4Funeral expensesRs. 3,000/-TotalRs.3,68,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that themultiplier of 16 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 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 13.1.2003. 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.6,000/- per month as building construction worker. Thewife of the deceased stated in her evidence that the deceased wasearning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing buildingconstruction work and agricultural work. P.W.2 stated that thedeceased was working under him for a daily wages of Rs.75/-.Considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Tribunal fixedthe income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month (i.e.,Rs.30,000/- per annum), which is low and the same is notcommensurate with minimum wages or living wages at the time ofaccident. (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 2003. Considering the same, the income of thedeceased, can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month at the time ofaccident and the compensation determined thereafter. (iv) The sum of Rs.35,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the five children including four minor children andaged mother 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.3,000/- granted towards funeral expensesincludes transport expenses, is reasonable and the same isconfirmed.(vii)Since the income fixed by the Tribunal is low which in turnaffects the compensation and the compensation granted for loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ love and affection to the five children including four minorchildren and the aged mother and the loss of consortium to thewife is also very low, the marginally higher multiplier "16"adopted in this case will justify the shortfall on other heads.(viii) Considering all the above aspects the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.3,68,000/- by the Tribunal does notrequire any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5%as the accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and theaward is of the year 2006. 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 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.RegistrartsToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Tindivanam. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.10581C.M.A.No.672 of 2009BV(CO)SRA(7/5/2009)