THE HONOURABLE MR v. Govindammal2. Minor Arunkumar3. Minor Selvam4. Ammani5. Subrayan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.04.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAC.M.A.No.871 of 2006The Managing DirectorTamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Trichy... Appellant/Respondentvs.1. Govindammal2. Minor Arunkumar3. Minor Selvam4. Ammani5. Subrayan.. Respondents/Claimants(Minors rep by the mother and guardian Govindammal the Ist respondent herein)Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2004 made inM.A.C.T.O.P.No.967 of 2003 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2),Cuddalore.For Appellant:Mr.M.KrishnamoorthyFor Respondents:Mr.M.Dhandapani-----J U D G M E N T(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)By consent, the main appeal itself is taken up for finaldisposal.2. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed againstthe judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal dated 7.6.2004 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.967 of 2003, wherebythe Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum ofRs.12,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., for the deathof one Arulsamy, husband of first respondent, father of second andthird respondents and son of fourth and fifth respondents, in amotor accident said to have taken place on 20.2.2002 at about 2.30p.m., near Valayamadevi Cross Road at Cuddalore to Vridhachalm mainRoad.3.1. The brief facts are stated as hereunder:- On 20.2.2002at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased Arulsamy was proceeding in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his bicycle along with one Ganesan from Mantharakuppam to his housein Cuddalore to Vridhachalam main road, near Valayamadevi crossroad, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-1616 belonging to theappellant/corporation, which came behind the bicycle in a rash andnegligent manner, dashed against the bicycle, resulting in thedeceased sustaining grievous injuries. He was immediately taken toN.L.C. Hospital, Neyveli and in spite of the best treatment given,he died on the next day.3.2. The respondents/claimants filed claim petition inMACTOP.No.967 of 2003 claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- forthe death of Arulsamy, which was resisted by theappellant/corporation both on the ground of negligence and quantum.The Tribunal, after framing the issues and on a carefulconsideration of the materials available on record, held that theaccident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of thebus belonging to the appellant/corporation. The Tribunal also heldthat the claimants are entitled to get compensation from theappellant/corporation and accordingly, determined a sum ofRs.12,84,000/- as compensation under various heads and awarded thesame at 9% interest p.a. Hence, this appeal by theappellant/corporation.4. The main contention of the learned counsel for theappellant is with regard to the quantum awarded by the Tribunalunder the head loss of income to the family members of thedeceased. He submits that the Tribunal erred in fixing Rs.8,500/-as the monthly income of the deceased for arriving at the quantumtowards loss of income to the family, but the net income, evenafter taking into consideration the future prospects could only befixed at Rs.7,500/-. The learned counsel for the appellant alsodisputed the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, viz. 18 years, toarrive at the quantum towards loss of income. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents onthe above contentions and also perused the entire materialsavailable on record.6. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was aged 27years at the time of accident, as evident from Ex.A-3, accidentregister copy and Ex.A-4, post-mortem certificate and was workingas a Grade-III technician in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,as seen from Ex.A-5, salary certificate. The main contention ofthe learned counsel for the appellant is that instead of takinginto account the net salary income of the deceased, the Tribunalerred in taking into consideration the future prospects and fixingthe monthly income as Rs.8,500/- based on Ex.A-5, salarycertificate, which itself, shows that the gross salary of thedeceased was Rs.7,842/-. As rightly pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the appellant, we are of the confirmed opinion thateven the net income, after taking into consideration the futureprospects could only be Rs.7,500/-, which is also not seriouslyobjected by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.Hence, we fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant inrespect of the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal cannot beaccepted in view of the fact that even as per the schedule, theproper multiplier would be only 18. Hence, applying 18 as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ multiplier and after deducting one-third towards personal expensesof the deceased, the loss of income to the family of the deceasedwould work out to Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 18).Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- under the said head.8. But, taking into consideration the age of the wife of thedeceased, the first respondent and the two minor children,respondents 2 and 3, we are inclined to enhance the amount awardedtowards loss of consortium to the wife from Rs.15,000/- toRs.30,000/- and towards loss of love and affection to the two minorchildren from Rs.10,000/- each to Rs.15,000/- each. Further, weare also inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head'pain and suffering', considering the fact that the deceased diedon the next day of the accident in the hospital, in spite of thebest treatment given. The amount awarded towards loss of love andaffection to the parents of the deceased to the tune of Rs.10,000/-each and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses stand confirmed. 9. Accordingly, the respondents/claimants are entitled to getRs.11,75,000/- as compensation as per the following heads:-Loss of income: Rs.10,80,000/-Funeral expenses: Rs. 5,000/-Loss of consortium: Rs. 30,000/-Loss of love and affectionto the children: Rs. 30,000/-to the parents: Rs. 20,000/-Pain and suffering: Rs. 10,000/- ------------- Rs.11,75,000/- -------------The above award amount of Rs.11,75,000/- is directed to bedisbursed to the respondents/claimants as per the apportionmentmade by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 10. With regard to the rate of interest, as per the decisionof the Apex Court in TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. v.S.RAJAPRIYA & ORS (2005 (4) Supreme 87),wherein the rate ofinterest fixed at 9% per annum by the Tribunal was reduced to 7.5%per annum taking note of the then prevailing rate of interest inbank deposits, we reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% perannum.The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of by reducing the awardof the Tribunal from Rs.12,84,000/- to Rs.11,75,000/- with interestat the rate of 7.5% per annum. No costs. Consequently,C.M.P.No.3391 of 2006 is closed.sraSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore.2. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate SR No. 27240+ 1 cc to M. Dhandapani, Advocate SR No. 27006HPR(CO)SR/30.5.2007C.M.A.No.871 of 2006