The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Annasalai, Chennai-600 002 v. V.Vijaya & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:17.04.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALC.M.A.No.1893 of 2003The Managing Director,Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,Annasalai, Chennai-600 002.... AppellantVs.1.V.Vijaya2.V.Nithiya (Minor)3.M.Munish (Minor)4.M.Kalaiarasan (Minor)5.S.Nagammal... RespondentsPrayer: Appeal filed against the award passed by the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, the Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai by its decree andjudgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.521 of 1999 dated 06.11.2002.For Appellant: Mr.A.BabuFor Respondents: Mr.U.M.RavichandranJUDGMENTThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,Chennai dated 06.11.2002 passed in M.C.O.P.No.521 of 1999, grantingcompensation of Rs.5,14,600/-.2.Aggrieved by the award so rendered, the Managing Director,Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai-2 as appellant, has impugnedthe same in the present appeal.3.The respondents, being the wife, children and mother of thedeceased S.Veerappan have preferred claim petition M.C.O.P.No.521 of1999, claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation.4.The material facts leading to the present appeal are set out inbrief:-The deceased S.Veerappan, on 09.07.1998 at about 20.00 hours wascrossing GST Road, opposite to Devi Karumariamman Koil from west toeast, at the pedestrian crossing, the MTC Bus TN-23-N-0660 driven by its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering the public safety cameat a dangerous speed from south to north dashed against the deceased andthus caused the fatal accident. The accident took place only due to therash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the respondentbeing a Corporation is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay thecompensation claimed with interest and costs from the date of theaccident.The appellant/respondent took a stand in the counter that on09.07.1998, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-0660,Route No.PP 66 started the trip at Vandalur Zoological Park andproceeded towards its destination Poonamallee and when the bus wasproceeding on the GST Road opposite to Devi Karumariamman Koil,Chrompet, the deceased without observing the traffic on the road,suddenly crossed the road from left side and hit the bus and thus, theaccident took place and therefore, the accident had occurred due to theignorant and reckless act of the deceased and as such, the driver of thebus was not responsible for the accident and resultantly, the appellant/respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, much less thecompensation claimed in the petition.Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents/ petitionerswitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were markedand on the side of appellant/ respondent witness R.W.1 was examined andno exhibits were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral anddocumentary evidence, after holding that the accident was caused due tothe negligence of the appellant/respondent driver, passed an award ofRs.5,14,600/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petitioni.e. 22.07.1998 till date of payment. Questioning the same, theTransport Corporation has projected the present appeal.5.In order to prove negligence, P.W.2-Renganathan, brother ofdeceased Veerappan was examined. According to him, on 09.07.1998 at 8.00p.m. in GST Road on the western side, he was standing near the entranceof Devi Karumariamman Koil and at that time, his brother while crossingthe 20 feet distance road from west to east, the bus TN-23-N-0660 comingfrom south to north dashed against him and as a result thereof, hisbrother sustained injuries on the head and that his brother expired onthat day of accident and that he has given the complaint and that theaccident took place because of the negligence of the bus driver. Thecertified copy of FIR has been marked as Ex.P.3. As against the evidenceof P.W.2-Renganathan, the Conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Inhis evidence, R.W.1 has deposed that the bus TN-23-N-0660, Route No.PP66 was proceeding to Poonamallee in the Vandalur Zoological Park Roadand when the bus came to Chrompet Via Poonamallee, it suddenly stoppedand he got down from the bus and saw one person was injured and thatperson was lying after getting injured on the front left tire and heheard that the said person came and fell across.6.It is the specific evidence of R.W.1-Pandian (Conductor) in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cross examination that he has not seen the said individual when he camecrossing. Admittedly, the driver of the bus S.Bharathi was not examinedbefore the Tribunal. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of Charge Sheet filedin C.C.No.469 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. Asseen from Ex.P.5, the driver of the bus was charged in respect ofoffences under Section 279 and 304 (A) of I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the Judgmentof the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 07.08.2000 passed inC.C.No.469 of 1998. It transpires from Ex.P.6-Certified Copy of Judgmentthat the driver of the bus an accused, was found guilty under Section279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the Legal Heirship Certificate dated22.06.1999. Ex.P.2 is the Postmortem Certificate in respect of thedeceased Veerappan. Ex.P.4 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P.5 is the ChargeSheet. In Ex.P.3-Certified Copy of FIR, it is clearly stated that 'thebus belonging to Tamil Nadu Government MTC Route No.66, registration No.TN-23-N-0660 came in high speed and dashed against his brother anddragged him to a distance of approximately 20' (twenty feet) and seriousinjury was sustained on the head' and therefore, the principle of resipsa loquitur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.From the testimony of P.W.2-Renganathan and on consideration ofmaterials on record, it is candidly clear that the driver of theappellant Corporation, who drove the bus, was negligent and caused theaccident and therefore, this Court is in complete agreement with theconclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the accident took place onaccount of the negligence act of the driver and that the driver of thebus was solely responsible for causing the accident.7.In regard to the quantum, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1-Vijaya, wife of the deceased Veerappan, that her husband was employed asPainting Contractor and at the time of his death, he was 29 years oldand was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. The respondents 2 to 4are the minor children of the deceased Veerappan. The 5th respondent isthe mother-in-law of first respondent.8.The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier as 17. It has fixed thenotional income as Rs.3,600/- per month. For one third deduction, it hastaken into account a sum of Rs.1,200/-. The monthly dependency isarrived at Rs.2,400/- and the annual loss of income has been fixed atRs.28,800/-. By adopting the multiplier 17, a sum of Rs.4,89,600/- hasbeen arrived at by the Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid sum ofRs.4,89,600/-, for loss of consortium a sum of Rs.10,000/-, for loss oflove and affection a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for funeral expenses a sumof Rs.5,000/- were awarded and total compensation of Rs.5,14,600/-(Rupees Five lakhs fourteen thousand and six hundred only) was awardedto the respondents/petitioners.9.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the income ofthe deceased Veerappan has not been proved with proper documents and theTribunal committed an error in awarding exorbitant amount ofRs.5,14,600/- towards compensation and therefore, the award of theTribunal requires reconsideration in the hands of this Court and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consequently, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.10.In the claim petition, the deceased Veerappan's age is mentionedas 29. P.W.1-wife of the deceased, in her evidence has also deposed thather husband's age at the time of his death was 29. It is significant topoint out that in Ex.P.2-Postmortem Certificate, the age of the deceasedis mentioned as 30 years. To know about the exact age of deceasedVeerappan at the time of his death, no birth certificate has been markedin the case. In its absence, a reliance can be placed on the Ex.P.2-Postmortem Certificate and accordingly, this Court fixes the age of thedeceased Veerappan at the time of his death as 30.11.In Radhey Shyam Agarwal and Another V. Gayatri Devi and others,1998 ACJ 1177, where the deceased was aged 30 years, a business manearning Rs.3,250/- per month and claimants were widow and five minorchildren, Appellate Court has adopted the multiplier as 17.12.In Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Sakhi Bai and Others,1998 ACJ Page 505, where a deceased was aged 30 years, the dependencywas assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and multiplier of 17 was allowed.13.Considering the fact that the deceased Veerappan during his lifetime was maintaining his wife, children and mother, being therespondents/petitioners and inasmuch as he was employed as PaintingContractor, there is no error on the part of the Tribunal in fixing hisnotional income at Rs.3,600/- per month. The Tribunal has rightlydeducted Rs.1,200/- per month for the personal expenses of the deceasedVeerappan. The monthly dependency of Rs.2,400/- arrived at by theTribunal suffers no infirmity or illegality in the considered opinion ofthis Court. It is pertinent to point out that though a plea was taken inthe counter by the appellant Corporation that the deceased withoutobserving the traffic on the road suddenly crossed the road etc.However, the same has not been substantiated by the appellant to thesatisfaction of this Court and resultantly, the said plea ofcontributory negligence is not accepted.14.The Tribunal has awarded a sum Rs.5,14,600/- to therespondents/petitioners as compensation for the death of deceasedVeerappan along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petitioni.e. 22.07.1998 till date of payment. The first respondent/petitionerhas been awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and respondents 2 to4/petitioners have been awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The 5threspondent/5th petitioner has been awarded a sum of Rs.64,600/- etc. 15.It is relevant to mention that the interest is awarded by theTribunal not as damages but the same is granted only for being let outof money which ought to have been paid to the claimants. To put itdifferently, interest takes care of the period between the date of claimand the date of final payment. As a matter of fact, in Malliga V.S.K.Rajendran 2005 ACJ 1218 (Mad), the interest is allowed at 9% per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ annum from the date of application.16.From the foregoing discussions and in the light of oral anddocumentary evidence available on record and viewing it from any angle,this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal cannotbe said to be either unreasonable or exorbitant and on the other hand,the award passed by the Tribunal is reasonable and there is no scope forinterference in the appeal. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the sameis dismissed. Consequently, the award passed by the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, viz., Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai inM.C.O.P.No.521 of 1999 dated 06.11.2002 is confirmed by this Court forthe reasons assigned in this appeal. Bearing in mind the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar sglTo1. The Chief Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.1 CC To Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, Advocate, SR NO.22820 Judgment in C.M.A.NO.1893 OF 2003TS(CO)rvr 20/05/08