The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. R.Suganthi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.692 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Division-1,Mettupalayam Road,Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.1.R.Suganthi,2.Minor K.Sathya Bhama,3.A.Natarajan.(Minor respondent No.2 isrepresented by her motherSmt.R.Suganthi)(3rd respondent is given upin the appeal ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and respondent No.1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 27.9.2006passed in M.C.O.P.No.744 of 2005 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.3), Dharapuram.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi -----JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 27.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.744 of2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Dharapuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on5.6.2002. The deceased N.Kamalakannan, said to be aged 42 years,an electrician, was travelling in the TVS 50 Moped from Pollachi Townto Palladam. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of theappellant transport corporation bus, the bus hit the two wheeler. Inthat accident, the said Kamalakannan was thrown out of the vehicleand sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately thesaid Kamalakkan was taken to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital and then to theCMC hospital , Coimbatore by the people who gathered at the scene ofaccident. Even though best treatment was given the said Kamalakannndied on 26.6.2002 at Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. Thewife aged 37 years and minor daughter aged 4 years filed a claimunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation ina sum of Rs.9 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-per month.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Gunasekaran, the eye witness to the accident,was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of theclaimants, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR dated 6.6.2002,Ex.A-2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 5.6.2002, Ex.A-3 is the copy of post-morterm certificate dated 27.6.2002,Ex.A-4 is the medical receipt dated 5.6.2002, Ex.A-5 is the admission and death certificate dated 13.8.2002, Ex.A-6 is the hospital bill dated 25.6.2002,Ex.A-7 is the death certificate dated 3.7.2002,Ex.A-8 is the legal heir certificate dated 4.7.2002,Ex.A-9 is the medical bills dated 5.6.2002 andEx.A-10 is the work and salary certificate dated 13.6.2006.Mr.Natarajan, the first respondent before the Tribunal, the thirdrespondent herein and the driver of the appellant transportcorporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked onbehalf of the appellant transport corporation, the 2nd respondentbefore the Tribunal. 4. With regard to negligence, the Tribunal discussed the issuein paragraphs 6 to 9 of the award in answer to point No.1. TheTribunal based on eye witness P.W.2, Ex.A-1 FIR and Ex.A-2 MotorVehicle Inspector's Inspection Report, held that due to rash andnegligent driving by the driver of the appellant transportcorporation, the accident happened. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixedthe liability to compensate the claimants on the appellant transportcorporation. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal onmerits as the driver of the bus did not give complaint against thedriver of the two wheeler. There is no material on record to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ controvert the finding of the Tribunal, in the appeal filed by theappellant transport corporation. Therefore, the finding of negligenceon the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and theliability fixed on the appellant transport corporation bus cannot beand is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in theappeal and the same is confirmed. The only contention seriouslycontended by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantumof compensation. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, thesame was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the award inanswer to point No.2. Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-3,the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 38 years. Based on thework and salary certificate issued by the employer, Ex.A-10 andconsidering the occupation of the deceased as electrician, theTribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month asclaimed. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of thedeceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits to thefamily of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. Based on the age ofthe deceased at 38 years, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier andgranted a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-)as loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased. TheTribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all,the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5%interest as follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependentsof the deceasedRs.3,84,000/-2Funeral expenses Rs. 6,000/-3Loss of love and affection and loss offuture guidance on the death of thedeceasedRs. 15,000/-4Mental shock and agony on the death of thedeceasedRs. 15,000/-5Loss of consortium to the wife on the deathof her husbandRs. 15,000/-6Medical expenses as per Exs.A-6 and A-9Rs.1,10,000/-TotalRs.5,45,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the quantumof compensation is excessive and not justified on one or other heads.In particular, it is contended that the multiplier of 12 adopted bythe Tribunal is high besides other heads. Therefore, the quantum ofcompensation has to be reduced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 5.6.2002. The deceased wasaged 38 years at the time of accident. He was an electrician. Hewas self employed.(ii) The income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs3,000/- per month is notdisputed. (iii) After the accident the injured was taken to Sri RamakrishnaHospital and then to the CMC hospital , Coimbatore by the peoplewho gathered at the scene of accident. Even though besttreatment was given in the hospital, the said Kamalakannan died on26.6.2002 at Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. He was in thehospital for 21 days. No amount was granted towards transportexpenses and towards attender charges during that period for whichthe the claimants are entitled to. (iv) The sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to thewife and the sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the minor female child is very meagre.(v) The sum of Rs.1,10,000/- granted towards medical expenses isbased on the medical bills and the same cannot be and is notdisputed.(vi) Since the deceased died after taking treatment for 21 days inthe hospital, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towardsmental shock and agony, which is not disputed and the same isconfirmed. (vii)The marginally higher multiplier adopted in this case andmarginally excessive compensation, can be justified and adjustedtowards attender charges and transport charges, for which noamount was granted and lesser compensation granted towards loss ofconsortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to the 4year minor female child. (viii) Considering the above aspects the total compensation grantedin a sum of Rs.5,45,000/- by the Tribunal does not require anyfurther reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as theaccident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award isof 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 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.RegistrartsToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Dharapuram, Erode1 cc To M/s. B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.8616C.M.A.No.692 of 2009MBS(CO)SRA(27/4/2009)