M/s. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation v. Viswanathan & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.770 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 M/s.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division,No.37 Mettupalayam road,Coimbatore-641 043. ... Appellant/2ndRespondent vs.1.Viswanathan,2.V.Radhamani,3.R.Balasubramaniyan. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and2 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.2.2007passed in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Coimbatore.For appellant : Mr.V.RameshJUDGMENTThe Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 28.2.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief JudicialMagistrate), Coimbatore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on14.9.2004. The deceased V.Nithiyananthan, a 20 years old student,was travelling in Kawasaki Bajaj 100 Bike. The bus belonging to theappellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash andnegligent manner hit the two wheeler. In that accident the saidNithiyananthan died on the spot. The father aged 46 years andthe mother aged 40 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.5 lakhs.3. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Pragadeeswaran, a passenger in the appellanttransport corporation bus and also the eye witness to the accidentwas examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked, the details ofwhich are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the true copy of FIR, dated 14.9.2004,Ex.A-2 is the copy of charge sheet dated 13.10.2004,Ex.A-3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 11.9.2004,Ex.A-4 is the copy of rough sketch dated 14.9.2004,Ex.A-5 is the college transfer certificate dated 27.9.2004,Ex.A-6 is the death certificate dated 28.9.2004,Ex.A-7 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 14.9.2004,Ex.A-8 is the copy of legal heir certificate dated 1.11.2004 andEx.A-9 is the copy of identity card issued by the college. Mr.Balasubramanian, the driver of the appellant transport corporationbus was examined as R.W.1. The copy of judgment dated 27.7.2005passed in C.C.No.250 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.8,Coimbatore, was marked as Ex.B-1 on behalf of the appellant transportcorporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal.4. Based on the transfer certificate Ex.A-5, the Tribunal fixedthe age of the deceased as 18 years. Since, the deceased was astudent at the time of accident, the Tribunal in terms of secondschedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, fixed theincome notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed thecompensation at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Based on the age of thedeceased, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 16 and granted a sum ofRs.1,60,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 16 = Rs.1,60,000/-) as compensation tothe parents of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensationunder conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the followingamounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.1,60,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-3Loss of love and affection to the parents onthe death of their only son Rs. 40,000/-TotalRs.2,05,000/-5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal held that the accident in this case happened due to rash andnegligent driving by the driver of the appellant transportcorporation bus. There is no material placed on behalf of theappellant transport corporation to controvert the finding of thenegligence. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of the driver ofthe appellant transport corporation bus and judgment of the criminalcourt Ex.B-1, on the ground that the criminal court judgment willnot bind the Tribunal automatically. Hence, the finding of rash andnegligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellanttransport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and thedeath and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporationto compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for theappellant and the same is confirmed. The contention of thelearned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that themultiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of death of a 20years old student is high resulting in excess compensation. He alsocontended that the sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards loss of loveand affection to the parents of the deceased is excessive.Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.7. On perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is notinclined to interfere with the award on the above contention and toreduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 14.9.2004. (ii) The deceased was 20 years old student at the time ofaccident. It is stated that he studied CA.(iii) Since the deceased was a student, the Tribunal in terms ofsecond schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle's Act fixedthe notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed thecompensation at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Adopting 16 multiplier theTribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation, which isvery low. (iv) In Manju Devi and another – vs. - Musafir Paswan and anotherreported in 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609(SC), the Apex Court hastaken the income of the deceased non-earning member as Rs.15,000/-per annum and adopting 15 multiplier granted a sum ofRs.2,25,000/- as compensation on the death of the 13 years oldstudent. In the Apex Court's decision, the accident happened inthe year 1999. In paragraph 3, the Apex Court held as follows:-"3. As set out in the Second Schedule to theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years ofage, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earningperson, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as theincome. Thus, the compensation comes toRs.2,25,000/-"In view of the Apex Court's decision, the compensation granted ina sum of Rs.1,60,000/- by adopting 16 multiplier for the 20years old student, a non-earning member, in this case, is notexcessive.(v) The sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the parents on the death of their only son isreasonable as the compensation on the death of the son is verylow and the same is confirmed.(vi) The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards funeral expenses isreasonable and the same is confirmed.(vii) Considering the above aspects, the total compensation in a sumof Rs.2,05,000/- is reasonable and does not require any furtherreduction, as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accidentin this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passedin the year 2007.8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeksfor eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted andon such deposit, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdrawthe same as per the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsToThe Chief Judicial Magistrate, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. 1 CC To Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate, SR NO.11331 C.M.A.No.770 of 2009mbs(co)pmk.14.5.2009