The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Ltd. v. Nagammal & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.4.2009CORAM:-THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R. SUDHAKARC.M.A.No. 2449 of 2003.....The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Ltd.,Bharathipuram,Dharmapuri. .. Appellant/RespondentVs.1. Nagammal2. Muniyan .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the orderand decree dated 26.12.2002 passed in MCOP No. 428 of 2002 on thefile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Special Court)Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran For Respondents : Mr. P. Mani ........JUDGMENTThe transport corporation has filed this appeal challengingthe award dated 26.12.2002 passed in MCOP No. 428 of 2002 on thefile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Special Court)Krishnagiri.2. The fatal accident in this case happened on 1.2.2002.The deceased Ravi, 23 years old bachelor earning member, was ridinga motor cycle near Uthankarai when the appellant transportcorporation bus coming from the opposite direction, hit the motorcycle and in that accident, the said Ravi died on the spot. Motheraged 40 years, father aged 45 years are the claimants. On the deathof his son, they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensationstating that their son was working as an assistant driller in a borewell company. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. According to the claimants, the income of the deceasedwas Rs.4,500/- p.m. The father was examined as P.W.1 and oneSaravanan, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Ex. P1,copy of the first information report and Ex.P2, copy of the postmortem certificate were marked. On behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined asR.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondentbefore the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofthe appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of theappellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is notdisputed. Such finding of the tribunal stands confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel forthe appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Takingnote of the fact that the deceased was 23 years old and working as aBore well driller, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased atRs.3,000/- p.m. stating that no document was filed. After deducting1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution tothe family was taken as Rs.24,000/- p.a. The Tribunal adopted 17multiplier and determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum ofRs.4,08,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-). In addition to theabove, the Tribunal granted compensation on conventional heads. Inall, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation withinterest at the rate of 9% p.a.Sl.No.HeadAmount granted by theTribunal1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.4,08,000/-2Mental agonyRs. 50,000/-3Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/-TotalRs.4,60,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleadedthat the deceased was a bachelor earning member and therefore, theTribunal ought not to have adopted 17 multiplier and the parents arenot entitled to higher compensation. He relied on the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Duttareported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 and stated thatthe proper multiplier will be 12 and not 17. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, whostated that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.3,000/- is verylow. Further, the deceased was in prime youth and the possibility ofhigher income will be there. He pleaded that the amount ofRs.50,000/- granted for mental agony can be adjusted towards loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ love and affection. He further stated that no amount was granted fortransport expenses and very meager amount has been granted towardsfuneral expenses. 8. In the present case, the deceased was a bachelorearning member. As far as the income is concerned, the following twodecisions will be kept in mind. (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 thatcase, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - JasbirKaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the viewthat an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In thatcase, the accident happened in the year 1999. Therefore, the income should have been fixed atleast Rs.3,500/- p.m.As far as the income is concerned, there is no material to deny theincome of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified infixing the income at Rs.3,000/-p.m.. In view of the Apex Courtdecisions cited above, and considering the period of accident, theincome should have been fixed at Rs.3,500/- p.m. As far as themultiplier of 17 is concerned, since the deceased was a bachelorearning member, the possibility of the deceased getting married andthe compensation getting reduced to the dependents in the course oftime is always there. Therefore, as against the multiplier of 17, inthe present case, the proper multiplier will be 12. Accordingly,the total compensation towards loss of pecuniary benefits will be Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 12 -1/3 = Rs.3,36,000/-). The motherwill be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the father will beentitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affectionon the death of their son. Further, the claimants are also entitledto a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/-towards transport expenses. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunalstands modified as follows:-Sl.No.HeadAmount grantedby the TribunalAmountgranted bythis Court1Loss of pecuniary benefitsRs.4,08,000/-Rs.3,36,000/-2Mental agonyRs. 50,000/- --3Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/-Rs. 5,000/-4Loss of love and affectionto the mother Rs.15,000/-and father Rs.10,000/- ---Rs. 25,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount grantedby the TribunalAmountgranted bythis Court5Transport expenses ---Rs. 2,000/-TotalRs.4,60,000/-Rs.3,68,000/-9. Since the accident happened on 1.2.2002 and the awardwas passed on 26.12.2002, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9%stands modified to 7.5% in view of the decision of the Apex Courtreported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation vs. S.Rajapriya). 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partlyallowed as follows:-(i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.3,68,000/-from Rs.4,60,000/-.(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands reducedto 7.5% p.a.(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weekstime to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed.On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amountas per the order of this Court. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs.(v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarraToThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Additional Special Court) Krishnagiri.Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, SR.131351 cc To Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, SR.13205 CMA No. 2449 of 2003PA(CO)SRA(11/6/2009)