The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division-I), Salem v. M.Asamath Beevi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 2.4.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.805 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division-I),Salem. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.M.Asamath Beevi,2.M.Kairunnisa,3.M.Nazeer,4.M.Jaffer Ali,5.M.Nisha alias Parkathunnish,6.Minor M.Noorjahan,7.D.Asarabi.(Minor 6th respondent isrepresented by her motherand guardian 1st respondent) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 7 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.10.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2007 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2),Cuddalore.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi -----JUDGMENTTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challengingthe award dated 31.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2007 on thefile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional DistrictJudge, Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore. 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 on 12.7.2006at 1.05 p.m. The deceased Mohammed Ali, aged 47 years, commissionagent and building material supplier, was travelling on a bicycle onthe Cuddalore-Pudhucherry Road. He was hit by the bus belonging tothe appellant transport corporation driven in a rash and negligentmanner by the driver. In that accident the said Mohammed Ali died.On the death of Mohammed Ali; the wife aged 40 years, threedaughters aged 23, 18 and 13 years respectively and two sons aged 21and 20 years respectively filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.15 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum ofRs.10,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Mohammed Nazirutheen, the eye witness to theaccident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked, thedetails of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R., dated 12.7.2006,Ex.A-2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Reports dated 13.7.2006, Ex.A-3 is the post-mortem certificate dated 13.7.2006 andEx.A-4 is the legal heir certificate dated 3.4.2008. Mr.Subramanian, the driver of the appellant transport corporation buswas examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of theappellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.4. The finding of negligence of rash and negligent driving on thepart of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and theliability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensatethe claimants is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel forthe appellant. Therefore, such finding stands confirmed. The onlycontention raised is with regard to quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal in the absence of specific record with regardto the income of the deceased, taking into consideration the age andthe nature of occupation as stated by the claimants and the number ofdependents, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month(i.e.) Rs.48,000/- per annum. Of which 1/3 was deducted and thepecuniary loss to the family of the deceased was fixed as Rs.32,000/-per annum. The Tribunal adopted 13 multiplier and fixed the totalpecuniary loss in a sum of Rs.4,16,000/- (Rs.32,000/- x 13 =Rs.4,16,000/-). In addition to that, the Tribunal grantedcompensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal grantedthe following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% perannum:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependentsRs.4,16,000/-2Loss of consortium to the wife on the deathof her husband Rs. 10,000/-3Loss of love and affection to the daughtersand sons on the death of their father Rs. 60,000/-4Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-TotalRs.4,91,000/-6. In appeal, the contention of the learned counsel for theappellant is that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.4,000/- permonth is higher and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined tointerfere with the award of the Tribunal and to reduce the quantum ofcompensation for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 12.7.2006. (ii) The deceased Mohammed Ali was aged 47 years and a commissionagent and building material supplier. He was supporting familyconsisting a wife, three daughters and two sons. All of them arevery young in age. The deceased would have earned sufficientamount to support a large family consisting of his wife and fivechildren. In this regard, the following two decisions can betaken into consideration for determining the income of thedeceased:-(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. -Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he thenwas) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. Inthat 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, wasof the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- permonth. In that case, the accident happened in the year1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceasedwas taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999respectively, whereas in the present case, the accidenthappened in the year 2006. Therefore, in this case, theincome of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is justified.There is no other issue canvassed by the counsel for theappellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) Considering all these aspects, the total compensation grantedby the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.4,91,000/- does not require anyfurther reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as theaccident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award waspassed in the year 2008. (iv) The Tribunal directed that if the award amount is not depositedwithin the time stipulated, the appellant has to deposit the awardamount with 10% interest and the excess rate of interest at 2.5%should be collected from the person concerned. The defaultinterest granted at 10% cannot be justified as per the decision ofthe Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - KeshavBhadur and others reported in 2004 ACJ 648. Further, defaultinterest is not contemplated under the provisions of the MotorVehicle's Act. In such view of the matter, the default interestis set aside and for that reason notice to respondents is notissued as the delay will cause prejudice to the claimants. 8. In the result, the award of the Tribunal in a sum ofRs.4,91,000/- with interest at 7.5% is confirmed. The defaultinterest is set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposedof on the above terms at the admission stage. Counsel for theappellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount andis granted and on such deposit, the respondents are permitted towithdraw the same as ordered and apportioned by the Tribunal.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsToThe Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.11850C.M.A.No.805 of 2009KA(CO)SRA(28/4/2009)