The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-II, Chennimalai Road, Erode v. Santha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.4.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARCivill Miscellaneous Appeal No.941 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Division-II,Chennimalai Road,Erode. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.Santha,2.S.Sarala,3.N.Suganthi,4.N.Kathiravan,5.Kandammal. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 20.10.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.272 of 2006 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V),Coimbatore at Tiruppur.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 20.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.272 of2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (AdditionalDistrict Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the caseare as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 10.6.2005.The deceased P.Nambiyar, aged 56 years, Junior Inspector in a Co-operative Society, was travelling in the bus bearing RegistrationNo.TN 33 N 1796 belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Thebus was stopped at the stop near Animal Husbandry Hospital, Avinashi.While the said Nambiyar was getting down from the bus, the driversuddenly started the bus, due to which the said Nambiyar fell downand sustained grievous injuries and died. The wife aged 49 years, twodaughters aged 30 and 29 years, one son aged 27 years and mother aged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 76 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhsstating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,996/- per month.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Dhanapal, the eye witness to the accident,was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked, the details whichare as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the printed copy of F.I.R., dated 17.6.2005, Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate,Ex.A-3 is the death certificate,Ex.A-4 is the legal heir certificate andEx.A-5 is the pension payment orderMr.Karuppusamy, the driver of the appellant transport corporationbus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf ofthe appellant transport corporation, the respondent before theTribunal.4. The version of eye witness P.W.2 is that the deceased wasgetting down from the bus in the bus stop near Avinashi, AnimalHusbandry Hospital, and the bus was suddenly started by the driverof the bus. Therefore, the deceased fell down and sustained grievousinjuries and died. A case has been registered against the driver ofthe bus. The Tribunal based on the F.I.R. and the criminal caseregistered against the driver of the bus and coupled with theevidence of P.W.2 came to conclusion that the death of the deceasedwas due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.Therefore, such finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofthe appellant transport corporation bus, and the liability fixed onthe appellant to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputedby the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same isconfirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel forthe appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by theTribunal.5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealtwith in paragraph 6 of the award in answer to point No.2.Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Junior Inspector in theoffice of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Erode. Atthe time of accident, the deceased was having 13 months service.Based on record, the last drawn salary of the deceased was fixed atRs.7,994/- per month. According to pension payment order Ex.A-5 thefirst petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs.4,078/- per month as familypension. Considering the number of family members and after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deducting ¼ towards personal expenses of the deceased and alsodeducting the family pension, the Tribunal fixed the loss ofcontribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.1,917/- per month.Since the deceased had left 13 months of service, the Tribunalcalculated the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased atRs.24,921/- for the period pre-retirement. The Tribunal thereafter,stating that the deceased was likely take private employment afterretirement and would earn a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and afterdeducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, fixed the sum ofRs.2,000/- per month towards loss of contribution to the family ofthe deceased for the period post retirement. Based on 8 yearsmultiplier, the Tribunal fixed the pecuniary loss for the periodpost retirement at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 8 =Rs.1,92,000/-). 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:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family ofthe deceased for the period of pre retirementRs. 24,921/-2Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family ofthe deceased for the period of postretirement Rs.1,92,000/-3Loss of consortium to the wife on the deathof the deceasedRs. 10,000/-4Loss of love and affection to two daughters,one son and aged mother (Rs.5,000/- each)Rs. 20,000/-5Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-TotalRs.2,51,920/-(rounded of toRs.2,51,920/-)6. In appeal, the counsel for the appellant contended that themultiplier of 8 in addition to 13 months compensation in a case ofdeath of a 56 years old person, is high. Therefore, the compensationhas to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this court is not inclined tointerfere with the quantum of compensation or reduced the same on theabove grounds for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 10.6.2005. The deceasedwas working as a Junior Inspector in the office of DeputyRegistrar of Co-operative Societies. His age was not disputed.His last drawn salary of Rs.7,994/- per month is also not indisputed. Therefore, the loss during the period of service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ determined by the Tribunal is justified. (ii) After retirement the deceased is entitled to pension and thathas been recorded by the Tribunal. More or less, half of thesalary the deceased would get pension. However, the familypension will be at reduced rate. (iii) The Tribunal adopted 8 multiplier in terms of second scheduleto Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988. (iv) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium tothe wife on the death of her husband is very low. (v) The sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of love andaffection to the two daughters, one son and aged mother is verymeagre.(vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.2,51,920/- 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 2005 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 granted andon such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same asper order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsToThe Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.+ 1 CC to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi,Advocate,SR.14756C.M.A.No.941 of 2009GV(CO)EM/4.5.09