The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,Pallavan Salai, Chennai v. Renuka (minor)rep. by her mother andguardian Sivakami

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.12.2008CORAM:-THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKARC.M.A.Nos. 3429, 3430 and 3950 of 2008........CMA No. 3429 of 2008:-The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Appellant/respondentVs.Renuka (minor)rep. by her mother andguardian Sivakami. .. Respondent/petitionerCMA No. 3430 of 2008:-The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Appellant/respondentVs.Devi (minor) rep. by her mother andguardian Patchaiyammal. .. Respondent/petitionerCMA No. 3950 of 2008:-The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,Pallavan Salai, Chennai... Appellant/respondentVs.1. Karpagam2. Jayanthi (mimor)3. Bhuvaneswari (minor)4. Vedavalli @ Divya (minor)(minors are rep. by their mother and guardian Karpagam)5. Devaki Ammal .. Respondents/ Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeals filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against theaward and decree dated 29.11.2005 made in MCOP No. 526 of 2004,527/04 and 538/04 {S.C.M.C.O.P No.72/03, 73/03 and 110/03respectively on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam} on the file of theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Fast Track Court No.I) Tindivanam. For Appellant : Mr. M. KrishnamoorthyFor Respondents in CMA No.3950/2008 : Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy.........COMMON JUDGMENTThe State Transport Corporation has filed these threeappeals challenging the common award dated dated 29.11.2005 made inMCOP No. 110 of 2003, 72 and 73 of 2003 on the file of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal ( Fast Track Court No.I MCOP Nos. 526 and527 and 538 of 2004) Tindivanam. 2. On 19.1.2003 at about 19.30 hours, the deceasedChinnaraj was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 09 AA4934 from Pidagam bus stop towards Ulundurpet when the transportcorporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 07 N 9377, driven in arash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the motor cycle. Inthat accident, the said Chinnaraj sustained grievous injuries and wastaken to Villupuram Government Hospital. He however died on the way.On the death of Chinnaraj, the wife aged 35 years, three minordaughters aged 15 years, 13 years and 7 years respectively and themother aged 62 years, and the father filed the claim petitionclaiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. 3. One minor girl by name Renuga, D/o Ravi, aged 14 years,and another girl Devi, D/o Venu, aged 14 years, who were travellingalong with the said Chinnaraj, suffered injuries in the saidaccident. They were treated at Villupuram Government Hospital andthereafter, they were treated at General Hospital, Chennai. For theinjuries suffered by minor Renuga, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- wasclaimed as compensation. For the injuries suffered by minor Devi,the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. 4. In support of the claim, wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One patchaiammal, mother of the injured claimantin MCOP No. 73 of 2003 was examined as P.W.3. Mother of anotherinjured claimant in MCOP No. 72 of 2003 was examined as P.W.3. OneSubramani, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.4. Dr. Sekar wasexamined as P.W.5. One Jeyadevamenan, official of the VillupuramDistrict police department was examined as P.W.6. Documents Exs.P1to P15 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Nodocumentary evidence was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondentbefore the Tribunal.5. As far as the negligence is concerned, the plea of theappellant is that the deceased Chinnaraj along with two minor girlshit the bus on the left side while he attempted to enter into themain road from a lyelane. The evidence of P.W.4, is that the driverof the bus was rash and negligent and the bus hit the two wheeler andthe negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus. TheTribunal accepted the plea of the eye witness and the documentaryevidence filed in support of the claim petition and fixed thenegligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Consequently, theliability to compensate the claimants was fixed on the appellanttransport corporation. Except the evidence of the driver and in theabsence of documentary evidence to support the plea of negligenceon the part of the deceased, the finding of the Tribunal with regardto negligence stands confirmed. This Court is unable to come to adifferent conclusion on this issue. 6. CMA No. 3429 of 2008:-Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the minor girlRenuga suffered fracture of the right femur and she was treated inthe General Hospital, Chennai from 19.1.2003 to 30.1.2003 and thedisability has been assessed at 20% under Ex.A11. Considering theage, the disability assessed at 20%, the tribunal granted thefollowing amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a. Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Disability assessed at 20%Rs. 20,000/-2Pain and sufferingRs. 10,000/-3Transport expensesRs. 1,500/-4Extra nourishmentRs. ,500/-TotalRs. 33,000/-7. No amount has been granted for attender charges and meageramount has been granted for extra nourishment. Considering thenature of injury, age of the injured claimant, percentage of thedisability assessed and the period of treatment taken, this Court isnot inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted bythe Tribunal by way of reduction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. CMA No. 3430 of 2008:-Insofar as the minor claimant Devi is concerned, shesuffered head injury and injuries all over the body. The doctorassessed the disability at 5% under Ex.A13. She took treatment inGeneral Hospital, Chennai from 19.1.2003 to 24.1.2003. Consideringthe age of the injured claimant and the period of treatment, thetribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interestat the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Disability assessed at 5%Rs. 5,000/-2Pain and sufferingRs. 7,000/-3Transport expensesRs. 1,000/-4Extra nourishmentRs. 1,000/-TotalRs. 14,000/-9. This court does not find any good reason to interferewith the quantum of compensation as meager amount has been grantedfor transport expenses and extra nourishment for the injury andtreatment taken by the injured young girl. Further no amount hasbeen granted for attender charges. Hence, there is no case made outfor reduction of the compensation. 10. CMA No. 3950 of 2008:-The deceased in this case is 41 year and six months oldpolice constable. His income as per Ex.A4 is Rs.6,151/-.Considering the number of claimants viz., wife, three minor children,aged father and mother and also taking note of number of years ofservice, the Tribunal after fixing the monthly income of the deceasedat Rs.6150/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses andby adopting 15 multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniarybenefits in a sum of Rs.7,38,000/-. In all, the Tribunal granted thefollowing amount as compensation with interest at the rate 7.5%.p.a.Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs. 7,38,000/-2For mental agony to the wifeRs. 5,000/-3For mental agony to other claimantsRs. 10,000/-4Loss of love and affectionRs. 10,000/-5Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe TribunalTotalRs.7,68,000/-11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that theTribunal erred in granting higher compensation by adopting highermultiplier and the same has to be reduced .12. This Court is not inclined to interfere with thequantum of compensation for the following reasons.The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as on thedate of the accident and the future prospects has not been taken intoconsideration. The Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier as per the secondschedule of the Act. No amount has been granted for loss ofconsortium to the wife and meager amount has been granted for loss oflove and affection to the minor children and aged parents. Hence,this court finds no good reason to interfere with the quantum ofcompensation by way of reduction. Even if there is some amount isexcess, it can be adjusted under other heads where the quantum isless.13. In all these cases, the Tribunal has granted interestat the rate of 7.5% p.a. As the accident happened in the year 2003and the award was passed in the year 2005, the interest granted bythe Tribunal in all the three cases at 7.5% p.a. is confirmed.14. Finding no merits, all the three appeals are dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.No costs. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weekstime to deposit the award amount in all the three cases and the sameis allowed. On such deposit, the claimants in all the cases areentitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. ra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( Fast Track Court No.I) Tindivanam. + 1 CC To Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate SR NO.70767+ 1 CC To Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate SR NO.70953 CMA Nos.3429, 3430 & 3950 of 2008KU {CO}TP/28.1.2009