The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore) Division II, Chennimalai Road,Erode District v. Indhumathi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.4.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.945 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore) Division II, Chennimalai Road,Erode District. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.1.Indhumathi,2.Anil Kumar Shah,3.Mahendran. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 20.6.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.1132 of 2006 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi -----JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 20.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1132 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 thecase are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on14.7.2006. The deceased Shasikanth, said to be aged 70 years, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ watch shop owner, was standing on the side of the mud road. Thebus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by itsdriver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said Shasikanth.In that accident, the said Shasikanth died. The wife aged 65 yearsand two sons aged 45 and 42 years filed a claim for compensationin a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sumof Rs.6,000/- per month.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Moorthy, the eye witness to the accident,was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, the details ofwhich are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the printed copy of FIR, dated 14.7.2006, Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate of the deceased,Ex.A-3 is the death certificate of the deceased,Ex.A-4 is the legal heir certificate of the deceased andEx.A-5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report of thebus.Mr.Muthusamy, 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 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 6 of the award in answer to pointNo.2. As far as income is concerned, there is no dispute that thedeceased was running a watch shop. The Tribunal fixed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3 towardspersonal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss ofcontribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month(i.e.) Rs.24,000/- per annum. Based on the post-mortem certificateEx.A-2, the age of the deceased was fixed as 72 years. Consideringthe age of the deceased and also the age of the claimants, theTribunal adopted 5 multiplier in terms of second schedule to Section163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and granted the compensation towardstotal pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased at Rs.1,20,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 5 = Rs.1,20,000/-). The Tribunal also grantedcompensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal grantedthe following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ follows:-Sl.No.Head Amount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family ofthe deceasedRs.1,20,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 3,000/-3Loss of consortium to the wife of thedeceased on the death of her husband Rs. 5,000/-TotalRs.1,28,000/-6. In appeal, the contention of the appellant's counsel isthat the multiplier of 5 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of 72years 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 14.7.2006. Admittedly,the deceased was running a watch shop. He was supporting hiswife.(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. (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 2006. Considering the same, the income of thedeceased, ought to have fixed atleast at Rs.3,500/- per month ashe was running a watch shop. This will be keeping in line withthe living wages and the cost of living during the period ofaccident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to thewife on the death of her husband is very meagre. No amount wasgranted towards loss of love and affection to the two sons.(iv) In terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the MotorVehicle's Act, 1988, for the age above 65 years, 5 multipliercan be adopted. (v) Even if the multiplier of 5, according to the appellant, ismarginally higher, it can be adjusted towards meagrecompensation granted towards loss of consortium to the wife andno compensation granted towards loss of love and affection tothe two sons and also on account of the lesser income fixed bythe tribunal. (vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- 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 2006 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.RegistrartsToThe Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.+1cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate Sr 14757TS(CO)km/7.5.C.M.A.No.945 of 2009