Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager,Region II Vizhupuram Division,Rangapuram,Vellore v. Selvi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.04.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No. 3349 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager,Region II Vizhupuram Division,Rangapuram,Vellore. ... Appellant vs.1. Selvi2. Tamizharasi(minor)3. Komathi(Minor)4. Jothi ... RespondentsMinors R2 and R3 rep byNatural guardian R1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 05.04.2007passed in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2005 on the file of Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Gudiyatham, Vellore District.For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For respondents : Mr.K.Moganaraju JUDGMENTThe Transport corporation has filed this appealchallenging the award dated 05.04.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.257 of2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SubordinateJudge) Gudiyatham, Vellore District.2. The matter was listed on 12.12.2009 for admission andwas adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for theappellant and in the meanwhile, the respondent/ claimants entered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearance through counsel. They have also filed an applicationfor withdrawal of the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Atrequest of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for finaldisposal.3. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in thiscase happened on 3.9.2005 at about 1.30 a.m. The deceasedSasikumar, aged 28 years was travelling in a bullock cart driven byone Loganathan from Gudiyatham to Pallikondan. The said bullockcart was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven byits driver in a rash and negligent manner and in that accident,Sasikumar died. One of the bulls was severely injured and died.On the death of Sasikumar, the wife aged 24 years, daughters aged 4years and 1 ½ years and the mother aged 42 years filed a claim fora sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.4. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1 and one Loganathan was examined as P.W.2.Documents Exs. P1 to P12 were marked. On behalf of the appellantone Raman, Conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. The injuredClaimant Loganathan also filed another claim for the injuriessustained by him and for the death of the bull. A common order waspassed by the Tribunal. In sofar as the injuries caused toLoganathan, a sum of Rs.27,000/- was granted as compensation whichincludes the compensation for the death of the bull and the damageto the cart with interest at 6% p.a. As against the said award, noappeal has been filed by the appellant transport corporation. Thefinding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellanttransport corporation bus stands accepted. 5. In the present appeal also, there is no dispute withregard to the compensation. The only contention raised is withregard to the fixation of income. According to the oral evidence,the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-p.m. The tribunal fixedthe income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. After deducting1/3rd, the Tribunal fixed the total contribution to dependents atRs.24,000/- p.a. Based on the age of the deceased 25 years asper the post mortem certificate Ex.P3 and the wife, who is said tobe 24 years, the Tribunal adopted 18 multiplier and determined theloss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-. Inaddition, the Tribunal also granted compensation on conventionalheads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount ascompensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.Sl.No. HeadAmount grantedby the Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.4,32,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. HeadAmount grantedby the Tribunal3Loss of love and affectionRs. 5,000/-4Medical expensesRs. 2,761/-5Loss of consortium to the wifeRs. 5,000/-TotalRs.4,46,761/-6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel forthe appellant is that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunalis on the higher side. However, on going through the grounds ofappeal, there appears to be no such plea with regard to themultiplier. In any event, since the deceased was 25 years old asper the post mortem certificate and the wife is said to be 24years old, the higher multiplier of 18 can be adopted in view ofthe Apex Court decisions in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpanaand others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 andin The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and othersreported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC). 7. In 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC) the Supreme Court held thus inparagraph 13 to 15 as follows:-"13. In G.M.Kerala S.R.T.C. v. SusammaThomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631, it was noted that thenormal rate of interest was about 10% andaccordingly the multiplier was worked out. Asthe interest rate is on the decline, themultiplier has to consequently be raised.Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18as was adopted in U.P. State Road TransportCorpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22,appears to be appropriate. In fact in U.P.State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand,1996(4) SCALE 22, after reference to SecondSchedule to the Act, it was noticed that thesame suffers from many defects. It was pointedout that the same is to serve as a guide, butcannot be said to be invariable readyreckoner. However, the appropriate highestmultiplier was held to be 18. The highestmultiplier has to be for the age group of 21years to 25 years when an ordinary IndianCitizen starts independently earning and thelowest would be in respect of a person in theage group of 60 to 70, which is the normalretirement age. (See:New India Assurance Co. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ltd. v. Charlie and Another, 2005(10) SCC 720.(emphasis supplied)14. The above position was highlighted inU.P. State Road Transport Corporation v.Krishna Bala and Ors., 2006(6) SCC 249;Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v. K.I. Bindu,2005(8) SCC 473; T.N. State TransportCorporation Ltd. - v. S.Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC236; Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v.Lasman Iyer, 2003(8)SCC 731; State of Haryanav. Jasbir Kaur, 2003(7) SCC 484; The New IndiaAssurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana andOrs., 2007(2) SCALE 227; New India AssuranceCo. Ltd. v. Satendar & Ors. JT 2006(10) SC 234.15. Considering the age of the deceasedappropriate multiplier would be 12. Theincome fixed by the Tribunal and the deductionfor personal expenses do not warrant anyinterference. Worked out on that basis, theentitlement of the loss of income isRs.5,76,000/-. The other expenses awardedremain unaltered. In other words, totalentitlement of the claimants is fixed atRs.6,00,000/-. It would be appropriate to fixthe rate of interest at 7.5% instead of 9% asdone by the Tribunal and maintained by theHigh Court."The ratio of the above said decisions will be applicable to thepresent case. 8. Further, the accident, in this case happened in theyear 2005. The income of the earning member supporting the wife,two minor children and the mother could have been fixed much higherin view of the following two decisions in B.Anandhi – vs. - Lathareported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., and in State of Haryanaand another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 LawWeekly.9. The rate of interest is also very low. Thecompensation for loss of consortium to the wife and loss of loveand affection to the two minor children is paltry. Therefore,there is no good reason as to why the compensation awarded by theTribunal should be reduced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal isdismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009 areclosed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ra ToThe Motor Accidents Claims TribunalSubordinate Judge,Gudiyatham, Vellore District1 cc to Mr.K. Mohanaraju, Advocate, SR. 117981 cc to Mr.V. Ramesh, Advocate, SR. 11491 CMA No 3349 of 2008LA (CO)kk 20/4