Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,Madurai Division,Bye Pass Road, Madurai Town,Madurai DistrictRep. By its Managing Director v. Vanaja

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATE: 28.09.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYC.M.A.(MD).No.213 of 2011 &M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 3 of 2011Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,Madurai Division,Bye Pass Road, Madurai Town,Madurai DistrictRep. By its Managing Director.... Appellant/RespondentVs.1.Vanaja2.Akila(minor)3.Indhumathi(minor)4.Archana (minor)5.Manimuthu6.Duraisamy ... Respondents/Petitioners(Respondents 2 to 4 through their mother and guardian 1st respondent)Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2010passed in MCOP No.79 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident ClaimTribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukkottai.For Appellant: Mr.S.C.Herold SinghFor respondents : Mr.G.MarimuthuJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)Aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Subordinate Court, Aruppukkottai in MCOP No.79 of 2009, theTransport Corporation has filed the above appeal.2. The appellant has challenged the findings with regard to quantumas well as negligence. The respondents/claimants filed MCOP No.79 of 2009claiming a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- lakhs for the death ofone Kalimuthu in a road accident. The first respondent is the wife of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2deceased, the respondents 2 to 4 are his daughters and the respondents 5and 6 are his parents.3. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Grade-IPolice Constable earning a monthly salary of Rs.14,091/-; that on27.11.2009 at about 5.40 a.m. when the deceased along with other policepersonnel was carrying on vehicle check on the eastern side of the roadin Kariapatti, Madurai National Highways, at that time, a bus bearingregistration No.TN 58 N 0540 driven by one Saravanan coming from South toNorth in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Kalimuthu and hesustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was taken to ApolloHospital, Madurai. However, he succumbed to injuries very shortly in thehospital. Therefore, the claimants claimed a total compensation ofRs.25,00,000/- for the death of Kalimuthu.4. According to the appellant, the accident occurred only because thedeceased suddenly came from the right side of the road to the middle ofthe road; that the driver of the bus applied brakes and stopped the bus.But the lorry bearing registration no TN 33 AU 1166 which was coming frombehind dashed against the bus, resulting the bus dashing against thedeceased. Therefore, according to the appellant Transport Corporation,the accident had occurred due to the carelessness of the deceased andrash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. In thesecircumstances, the Transport Corporation prayed for dismissal of theclaim petition.5. Before the Tribunal on the side of the claimants three witnesseswere examined and five documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked and on theside of the appellant Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus wasexamined as RW1 and two documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. TheTribunal, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence onboth sides, found that the driver of the bus was solely responsible forthe accident and awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,59,505/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the dateof deposit. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal.6. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the appellant andMr.G.Marimuthu learned counsel for the respondents.7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contendedthat it was only due to carelessness of the deceased, the accident hadoccurred, therefore, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay anycompensation. The learned counsel also submitted that since the deceasedhad suddenly came from the right side of the road to the middle of theroad, the accident had occurred. The learned counsel further submittedthat the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much onthe higher side. 8. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for theappellant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theclaimants/respondents submitted that the Tribunal is right in findingthat the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident. The learnedcounsel for the respondents also submitted that the award passed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is just and proper and he prayed fordismissal of the appeal.9. On a careful consideration of the materials available on recordand the submissions made by both the counsels, it could be seen that theaccident had occurred on 27.11.2009 at about 5.40 a.m. Though theappellant had contended that the accident had occurred due to thecarelessness of the deceased i.e. the deceased suddenly came from theright side of the road to the middle of the road, the accident hadoccurred, there is nothing on record to support the case of the TransportCorporation by any means. 10. On a perusal of the available records, it could be seen that eventhe accident sketch was not produced before the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal. That apart, except the evidence of the driver of the bus, whowas examined as RW1, there is no other witness to controvert the evidenceof PW2, who is an eyewitness. PW2 who is working as Sub Inspector ofPolice, who was with the deceased at the time of accident, hadcategorically stated about the occurrence of the accident. In order tocontrovert the evidence of PW2, the appellant has not let in anyevidence. PW2 in his evidence has categorically stated that the accidenthad occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver ofthe bus. In the absence of any evidence to support the case of theappellant, we are of the considered view that RW1, who is the driver ofthe bus was solely responsible for the accident which resulted in thedeath of the police constable, Kalimuthu. The Tribunal has rightlyfastened the negligence on the driver of the bus. Therefore, we confirmthe finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence.11. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceasedwas aged 38 years at the time of accident and he was earning a sum ofRs.13,511/- per month, as per the Salary Certificate Ex.P1. The Tribunaladopting 16 as multiplier and deducting 1/3rd towards his personalexpenses, awarded a sum of Rs.23,49,504/- towards pecuniary loss. TheTribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortiumand loss of love and affection. That apart, the Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is is not in dispute that thereare 6 dependants to the deceased. Applying the principles laid down bythe Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi TransportCorporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, if there are 4 or moredependants, only 1/4th have to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thatapart, as per the above said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court,the proper multiplier for the age group 30 is 15. Though the Tribunal hadadopted 16 as multiplier, if the total pecuniary loss is calculated asper the Sarla Verma's case (cited supra), the total compensation towardspecuniary loss would come more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal.Therefore, we are not interfering with the award passed by the Tribunaltowards pecuniary loss.12. So far as the award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortiumand loss of love and affection, the same is just and proper. Similarly,award of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses is also just and proper.Likewise award of interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petitiontill the date of deposit is just and proper. Therefore, the total amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4of Rs.24,59,505/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. We find noground to interfere with the award of the motor accident claims tribunal.The appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. 13. It is brought to our notice that pursuant to the order of thisCourt dated 30.11.2011, the first claimant, the wife of the deceased, waspermitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counselappearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the secondclaimant/second respondent had attained majority and the claimants 3 and4 are minors. The Tribunal apportioned the award amount as follows:-Rs.4,59,505/- to the first respondent/wifeRs.6,00,000/- each to the respondents 2, 3 and 4/daughtersRs.1,00,000/- each to the respondents 5 and 6/parents14. As already stated, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on30.11.2011, the first claimant/wife had withdrawn Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence,we permit the first respondent/wife to withdraw her entire share amounttogether with accrued interest, less the amount already withdrawn.Similarly, we also permit the respondents 5 and 6/parents to withdrawtheir entire share of the award amount together with accrued interest.Since the counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the secondclaimant had attained majority, the second claimant/second respondentshall file appropriate petition to declare herself as major before theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal after getting satisfiedwith the same, shall permit her to withdraw her share of Rs.6,00,000/-together with accrued interest. Since the respondents 3 and 4 are minorstheir share of award amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in anationalised bank initially for a period of 3 years. The first claimant.namely the wife of the deceased. is permitted to withdraw the interestaccrued there on once in six months from the deposited amount. The minorclaimants are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amounttogether with interest on attaining majority. Sd./- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR JIKRToThe Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukkottai.+ 1 cc to Mr. G.Marimuthu, Advocate vide SR 33073/2012RR/23.11.2012 4P : 3C C.M.A.(MD).No.213 of 2011 &M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 3 of 201128.09.2012