In the case of U.P.STATE ROAD TRANS.CORPN v. TRILOCK CHANDRA, I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 21.07.2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELUCMA.NPD.No.926 of 20021. Palaniappa Gounder2. Palaniammal...Appellants-vs-Tamilnadu State TransportCorporation Limited, rep. By itsManaging DirectorRamakrishna RoadSalem...RespondentCivil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and award ofthe learned Principal District Judge of Erode District, Erode inMCOP.No.1350 of 2000 dated 3.4.2001. For Appellants: Mr.S.Kaithamalai KumaranFor respondent: Mr.P.JagadeesanORDEROn 24.8.2000 at about 00.45 hours on the KNK Road, Erode infront of Vimal Tailor Shop the deceased was riding a TVS 50 bearingregistration No.TN – 38-2281 on the extreme left side of the road. The bus bearing registration No. TN- 27-N-1202 belonging to therespondent corporation was driven in a rash and negligent manner anddashed against the moped causing death of the deceased.

There is no demand before this Court with regard to fixingof negligence upon the driver of the transport corporation.

While coming as regards quantum of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatthough there was a claim for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, the Tribunal hasawarded only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as consolidated compensationwhich is not at all legally tenable. He further submitted that thedeceased was a bachelor aged about 29 years and he was working as aManager in Sri Sabari Textiles and earning a sum of Rs.5000/- permonth. The claimants have filed Exs.A5 to A12 documents tosubstantiate their contentions with regard to the income drawn by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their son deceased. After considering the oral evidence on record, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has come to the conclusion byfixing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- and sincethe claimants were aged about 55 and 50 years respectively at thetime of the accident, considering the age and status of the deceasedalso, awarded consolidated compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

In this connection, the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme court, in the decision reported in MANJU DEVI v.MUSAFIR PASWAN - IV(2005) ACC 15 (SC), is that multiplier of 15 hasto be adopted, by considering the notional income of Rs.15,000/- perannum. The law formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as follows:-"In the case of U.P.STATE ROAD TRANS.CORPN., v. TRILOCK CHANDRA, I (1996) ACC 592 (SC)= 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from themultiplier method on the ground that paymentbeing made is just compensation. It has been heldthat the multiplier method must be acceptedmethod for determining and ensuring payment ofjust compensation as it is the method whichbrings uniformity and certainty to awards madeall over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award ofcompensation had to be made by the multipliermethod. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 yearsof age, a multiplier of 15 would have to beapplied. As per the second schedule, he being anon-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must betaken as the income. Thus, the compensationcomes to Rs.2,25,000/-. "

The appeal is allowed. No costs. The respondent has to depositthe enhanced compensation of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at therate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition, within a period of sixweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such deposit, the appellants are at liberty to withdraw a sum ofRs.25,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- respectively towards theirshare in respect of enhanced compensation. Bg/Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Principal District Judge, Erode 2. The Section Officer, VR SectionHigh Court+ one cc to M/s. A.K. Kumaraswamy, Advocate sr no 45004+ one cc to M/s. P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate sr no. 45020gk(CO)nm(10.08.07)CMA.NPD.No.926 of 2002