The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,No.37, Mettupalayam Road,Coimbatore v. M.Shanmuga Konar & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.4.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.940 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,No.37, Mettupalayam Road,Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2ndRespondent vs.1.M.Shanmuga Konar,2.S.Sundara Pandian,3.S.Manthiram,4.S.Mariammal,5.S.Pathrakali,6.Minor S.Muthukrishnan, 7.A.Sankar, (minor 6th respondent is represented by his guardian and father Shanmuga Konar),(7th respondent is given up) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 6 and 1st respondent.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 7.3.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pollachi.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi -----JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 7.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court),Pollachi. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on10.12.2001. The deceased S.Valliammal, said to be aged 50years, a milk supplier, was walking on the road. The bus belongingto the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in arash and negligent manner, hit the said Valliammal. In thataccident, the said Valliammal died. The husband aged 55 years, thethree sons aged 27 years, 25 years, 14 years and two daughters aged23 years and 19 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/-per month.3. In support of the claim, the husband of the deceasedwas examined as P.W.1. One Karthikeyan, the eye witness to theaccident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked, thedetails of which are as follows:-Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of FIR, dated 10.12.2001, Ex.P-2 is the photocopy of the rough sketch,Ex.P-3 is the photocopy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's InspectionReport dated 11.12.2001, Ex.P-4 is the photocopy of the post-mortem certificate of the deceased dated 11.12.2001,Ex.P-5 is the true copy of the death certificate of the deceaseddated 18.1.2002 and Ex.P-6 is the true copy of the legal heir certificate of thedeceased dated 14.5.2002.The first respondent Mr.Sankar, the driver of the appellanttransport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document wasmarked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the secondrespondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofappellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on theappellant is not seriously disputed in the appeal by the learnedcounsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The onlycontention raised in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. 5. As far as compensation is concerned, the same was dealtwith by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to pointNo.3. In the absence of documentary evidence, the income of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased was fixed as Rs.3,000/- per month. Of which 1/3 wasdeducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss ofcontribution to the family of the deceased was taken as Rs.2,000/-per month (i.e.) Rs.24,000/- per annum. Based on post-mortemcertificate Ex.A-4 the Tribunal, fixed the age of the deceased as53 years. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased,the Tribunal adopted 11 multiplier and granted the total pecuniaryloss to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x11 = Rs.2,64,000/-). The Tribunal also granted compensationunder conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted thefollowing amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family ofthe deceasedRs.2,64,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-3Loss of consortium to the husband and theloss of love and affection to the threesons and two daughtersRs. 20,000/-4Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/-5Damage to clothes and articlesRs. 1,000/-TotalRs.2,92,000/-6. In appeal, the contention of the appellant's counsel isthat the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of 53years old earning member is high. Therefore, the quantum ofcompensation 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 andto reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 10.12.2001. Thedeceased is a lady and said to be a milk supplier and that is notdisputed. Besides her husband, the deceased was taken care oflarge family consisting three sons and two daughters of whichone son is a minor.(ii) In so far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal was notjustified in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- permonth, keeping in view of the following decisions:-(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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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 2001. Considering the same, the income of thedeceased, ought to have fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month as claimed.This will be keeping in line with the living wages during theperiod of accident. (iii)The lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss ofconsortium to the husband and the loss of love and affection tothe three sons and two daughters is very very meagre. (iv) Since the compensation granted towards loss of consortium tothe husband and loss of love and affection to three sons andtwo daughters is very very meagre, and lesser income fixed bythe Tribunal, the marginally higher multiplier will compensatefor the same. (v) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- by the Tribunal does notrequire any further reduction as also the interest granted at7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2001 andthe award is of the year 2008. 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 grantedand on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw thesame as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Pollachi.+1cc to Mrs. B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate Sr 14755MBS(CO)km/8.5. C.M.A.No.940 of 2009