Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division III) Ltd. v. Kaliyaperumal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.07.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.495 of 2001Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division III) Ltd.Rep. by its Managing DirectorTrichyFormerly known as Dheeran ChinnamalaiTransport Corporation...Appellant/Respondent(C.T.Accepted vide as per order of court dated 2.4.01 made in C.M.P.5470/01 by PSDJ)Vs.1) Kaliyaperumal2) Balasundari...Respondents/ClaimantsThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the judgment anddecree dated 12.01.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.357/99 on the file ofthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),Perambalur and set aside the same.For Appellant: Mr.G.MuniratnamFor Respondent: V.P.R.Thillai Raja for Mr.A.A.VenkatesanJ U D G M E N TThe Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (KumbakonamDivision III) which figured as the respondent before the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.357/99 is the appellantherein.2. The respondents herein had filed the above said MCOPclaiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation from the appellanttransport corporation for the death of their son Ilangilli in aroad accident that took place on 19.09.1995 at about 3.30 p.m. near https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Jayankondam bus stand. According to the respondents herein, thesaid deceased Ilangilli was knocked down by the bus bearingRegn.No.TN-45 N-0237 belonging to the appellant transportcorporation while he was proceeding in his TVS Motorcycle bearingRegn.No.TN-01 3945 towards west on the east-west road afterentering the said road from the street running on the south of thesaid road. The respondents had also made an averment in thepetition to the effect that the driver of the bus which came in thedirection of west to east entered the wrong side of the road andhit the deceased and that the said accident occurred solely due tothe rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver.Contending further that the said accident resulted in theinstantaneous death of the deceased Ilangilli, they had made theabove said claim as compensation. According to the petitionaverments, the deceased was aged about 27 years and was having amonthly income of Rs.3,100/- as a diesel mechanic. Based on thesaid averments, the respondents 1 and 2 herein prayed for an awarddirecting the appellant transport corporation to pay a sum ofRs.7,00,000/- as compensation together with an interest from thedate of accident till realisation. 3. The petition was resisted by the appellant transportcorporation denying the petition averments regarding the nature ofaccident, the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of thebus, the age, occupation and income of the deceased and thereasonableness of the amount claimed as compensation.4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted enquiryin which three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and fivedocuments were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 on the side of therespondents herein/petitioners. The conductor of the bus involvedin the accident was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked onthe side of the appellant herein/respondent. 5. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Tribunal consideredthe evidence brought before it in the light of the argumentsadvanced on either side, came to the conlusion that the driver ofthe bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was atfault and mulcted the liability on the appellant transportcorporation. The Tribunal assessed the compensation to which therespondents 1 and 2 were entitled at Rs.3,00,000/- and passed anaward directing the appellant transport corporation to pay the saidamount along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from thedate of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs.6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award both on thequestion of liability and on the question of quantum, the appellanttransport corporation has broughtforth this appeal on variousgrounds set out in the Memorandum of appeal.7. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.G.Muniratnam,learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.P.R.Thillai Raja,learned counsel for the respondents. The materials available onrecord were also perused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The appellant transport corporation against which theTribunal has passed an award directing payment of a sum ofRs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 has comeforward with the present appeal challenging the finding of theTribunal regarding the question of negligence and thereasonableness of the amount awarded by the Tribunal ascompensation. In order to substantiate the contention of therespondents 1 and 2 herein that the accident was the result of rashand negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellanttransport corporation, besides producing a certified copy of theFirst Information Report as Ex.A1, the respondents herein have alsoexamined P.W.2, the person who lodged the complaint with thepolice. On the other hand, the appellant transport corporation wascontent with examining R.W.1, who is alleged to be the conductor ofthe bus involved in the accident. P.W.2 in his statement beforethe police which formed the basis of the FIR and in his evidencebefore the Tribunal, was categorical in his assertion that thedeceased who came from the north-south street in the direction ofsouth to north entered the east-west road, turned towards west andwas proceeding in the direction of west on the left side of theroad and that while he was thus proceeding, the bus that came fromwest to east came to the wrong side of the road and hit thedeceased. Except a suggestion that, had the deceased stopped beforeentering the main road, he would not have met with the accident,there is no other suggestion put to P.W.2 to the effect that he wasnot an eye witness to speak about the accident. His oral evidenceis corroborated by the contents of Ex.A1.9. This court finds no reason to reject such an evidence ofP.W.2, especially in the light of the inability of R.W.1 to denythe suggestion that the driver of the bus who caused accident wasremoved from service. It is also pertinent to note that R.W.1 hasadmitted in his evidence that no document was produced to show thathe was the conductor on duty in the bus that met with the accident,namely the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-0237. On a re-appreciationof the evidence, this court comes to the conclusion that there isno scope, whatsoever, to interfere with the well considered findingof the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was at fault and theaccident took place due to the rashness and negligence on his part.Hence the said finding of the Tribunal has got to be confirmed.10. So far as the challenge made to the award on the questionof quantum is concerned, this court is able to find some force andsubstance in the case of the appellant transport corporation.According to the respondents herein/petitioners, the deceased wasaged about 27 years and the respondents 1 and 2, the parents of thedeceased, were aged 50 years and 45 years respectively. When theclaimants are elder than the deceased and the appropriatemultiplier that can be selected based on the age of the youngest ofthe claimants shall be less than the multiplier that can beselected based on the age of the deceased, the first one should bepreferred. The Tribunal, without adhering to the above saidmethod, seems to have applied 18 as the appropriate multiplier. Asthe second respondent (second petitioner) the younger of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimants had completed the age of 45 years as on the date of theaccident, multiplier should have been selected based on her agealone and not based on the age of the deceased. Therefore, thiscourt comes to the conclusion that the multiplier selected by theTribunal is inappropriate and that the appropriate multiplier for aperson in the age group of 45 and 50 years, the appropriatemultiplier shall be 13. The Tribunal has assessed the annualincome of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- alone. Deducting 1/3rd,Rs.16,000/- was taken as the multiplicand. The same is notchallenged. When the said multiplicand is multiplied by theselected multiplier 13, the compensation for loss of dependencyshall beRs.16,000/- x 13=Rs.2,08,000/-11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/- as funeral expenseswhich is slightly on the higher side and hence the same has got tobe reduced to Rs.5,000/-. The appellant has no grievance regardingthe amount awarded as compensation on other heads. Hence the totalamount of compensation to which the respondents 1 and 2 areentitled shall be fixed at Rs.2,18,000/- with the following split-up particulars. Loss of dependency:Rs.2,08,000/-For funeral expenses:Rs. 5,000/-For mental agony:Rs. 5,000/--------------TOTALRs.2,18,000/--------------12. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends thatthe interest awarded at 12% is on the higher side and hence thesame deserves to be reduced. Taking into consideration the thenprevailing lending rate of interest, this court feels that theinterest shall be reduced to 9%. Subject to the abovemodifications, the award of the Tribunal shall be confirmed in allother respects.13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowedin part and the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,00,000/-to Rs.2,18,000/-. The rate of interest is also reduced from 12% to9% per annum. Subject to the above said modifications the award ofthe Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other respects. Thereshall be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarasr/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1) The Principal District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perambalur.Copy to The section Officer, V.R.Section,High Court, Madras.1 CC To Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, Advocate, SR NO.417151 CC To Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate, SR NO.41913C.M.A.No.495/2001ck(co)pmk/21.8.2008.