Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Gowsalya & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.1.2009CORAM:-THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.4164 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division,II, C-3/97 Chennimalai Road,Erode.2. .. Appellant/II respondentVs.1. Tmt. Gowsalya2. Minor Sasikala3. Minor Deepadhaisini4. Minor Vallarasu5. Tmt. K. Santha..Respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners 1 to 36. Arjunan..6th Respondent/1st Respondent (R2 to R4 are rep. by theirnext friend/guardian/mother M. Gowsalya)(6th respondent was given upin appeal)Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against theaward and decree dated 30.6.2004 passed in MCOP No. 115 of 2004 onthe file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional DistrictJudge - Fast Tract Court No.IV) Erode at Bhavani. For Appellant : Mrs. B. VijayalakshmiFor Respondents : Mr. V. Manokaran for caveator/R1: R6 given up......... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENTThe transport Corporation has filed this appeal challengingthe award dated 30.6.2004 passed in MCOP No. 115 of 2004 on the fileof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-Fast Tract Court No.IV) Erode at Bhavani. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in thiscase happened on 22.11.2001. The deceased Murugan @ Murugesan, anelectrician, aged 28 years, was walking on the road, when he was hitby the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in arash and negligent manner and in that accident, he died. The wife,aged 25 years, two minor daughters, one minor son and the mother,aged 50 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation stating that the income of the deceased wasRs.5,000/- p.m.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased wasexamined as P.W.1. One Gurunathan was examined as P.W.2. DocumentsExs. A1 to A9 were marked. Ex. A1 is the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the roughsketch. Ex.A3 is the observation mahazar. Ex.A4 is the M.V.I.Report. Ex.A5 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A6 is the chargesheet. Ex.A7 is the copy of the judgment in criminal case. Ex.A8 isthe legal heir certificate. Ex.A9 is the copy of the report ofRamakrishna hospital. On behalf of the appellant/2nd respondentbefore the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Nodocumentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/2ndrespondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofthe appellant transport corporation bus, who is responsible for theaccident and the death and the liability of the transport corporationto compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for theappellant and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised bythe counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal based on theoral and documentary evidence, fixed the income of the deceased atRs.3,000/- p.m. equivalent to Rs.36,000/- p.a. After deducting 1/3towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting 18multiplier, the Tribunal determined the loss of pecuniary benefits ina sum of Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal grantedcompensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted thefollowing amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs. 4,08,000/-2Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/-3Loss of estateRs. 2,500/-4Loss of consortium to the wifeRs. 5,000/-TotalRs. 4,17,500/-6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel forthe appellant is that the 18 multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is onthe higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to bereduced. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other handpleaded that the quantum of compensation is just and reasonable andneed not be reduced.8. In this case, this court is not inclined to interferewith the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The income of the deceased electrician was taken as Rs.3,000/-p.m. He died in the accident which happened in the year 2001. (ii) If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- permonth, the annual income would come to Rs.36,000/-. Afterdeduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, theloss of pecuniary benefits would come to Rs.24,000/-. Byadopting 18 multiplier, the loss of pecuniary benefits would cometo Rs.4,32,000/-. But the Tribunal wrongly calculated toRs.4,08,000/-.(iii) Further, the following decisions will have to be kept in mindwhile fixing the income of the deceased:-(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Lathareported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was)observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that 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 1999 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happenedin the year 2001. The deceased was an electrician. (iv) The deceased in this case supported the family consisting ofthe wife, three minor children and the aged mother. Taking intoconsideration the living wages, price rise and the cost ofliving, and also the above decisions, the income of the deceasedshould have been fixed at least at Rs.3,500/- p.m. Even if themultiplier is marginally reduced and the higher income as aboveis taken, the compensation would be much more than what has beengranted by the Tribunal. (v) In this case, meager amount has been granted for funeral expensesand loss of consortium to the wife(vi) No amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection tothe three minor children and the aged mother. (vii) Considering all these aspects, the quantum of compensationgranted by the Tribunal does not require any modification orreduction. Hence, the total compensation granted in this caseis justified. (viii) As far as the interest is concerned, it is alleged that theinterest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is marginally higher.This court is not inclined to interfere with it as it willcompensate the lesser amount granted on conventional heads. 9. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Counsel for theappellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the balance awardamount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants arepermitted to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarra/ts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,( Additional District Judge- Fast Tract Court No.IV) Erode at Bhavani. +1cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate Sr 1906+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran,Advocate Sr 1918SSN(CO)km/11.2. CMA No. 4164 of 2008