IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.692 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-1, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.R.Suganthi, 2.Minor K.Sathya Bhama, 3.A.Natarajan. (Minor respondent No.2 is represented by her mother Smt.R.Suganthi) (3rd respondent is given up in the appeal ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and respondent No.1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 27.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.744 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Dharapuram. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 27.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.744 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Dharapuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 5.6.2002. The deceased N.Kamalakannan, said to be aged 42 years, an electrician, was travelling in the TVS 50 Moped from Pollachi Town to Palladam. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the bus hit the two wheeler. In that accident, the said Kamalakannan was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately the said Kamalakkan was taken to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital and then to the CMC hospital , Coimbatore by the people who gathered at the scene of accident. Even though best treatment was given the said Kamalakannn died on 26.6.2002 at Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. The wife aged 37 years and minor daughter aged 4 years filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in a sum of Rs.9 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Gunasekaran, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the claimants, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR dated 6.6.2002, Ex.A-2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 5.6.2002, Ex.A-3 is the copy of post-morterm certificate dated 27.6.2002, Ex.A-4 is the medical receipt dated 5.6.2002, Ex.A-5 is the admission and death certificate dated 13.8.2002, Ex.A-6 is the hospital bill dated 25.6.2002, Ex.A-7 is the death certificate dated 3.7.2002, Ex.A-8 is the legal heir certificate dated 4.7.2002, Ex.A-9 is the medical bills dated 5.6.2002 and Ex.A-10 is the work and salary certificate dated 13.6.2006. Mr.Natarajan, the first respondent before the Tribunal, the third respondent herein and the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. 4. With regard to negligence, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the award in answer to point No.1. The Tribunal based on eye witness P.W.2, Ex.A-1 FIR and Ex.A-2 Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report, held that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation, the accident happened. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability to compensate the claimants on the appellant transport corporation. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits as the driver of the bus did not give complaint against the driver of the two wheeler. There is no material on record to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ controvert the finding of the Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the appellant transport corporation. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation bus cannot be and is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. The only contention seriously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the award in answer to point No.2. Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-3, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 38 years. Based on the work and salary certificate issued by the employer, Ex.A-10 and considering the occupation of the deceased as electrician, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. Based on the age of the deceased at 38 years, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-) as loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased Rs.3,84,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 6,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection and loss of future guidance on the death of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- 4 Mental shock and agony on the death of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- 5 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 15,000/- 6 Medical expenses as per Exs.A-6 and A-9 Rs.1,10,000/- Total Rs.5,45,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the quantum of compensation is excessive and not justified on one or other heads. In particular, it is contended that the multiplier of 12 adopted by the Tribunal is high besides other heads. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 5.6.2002. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident. He was an electrician. He was self employed. (ii) The income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs3,000/- per month is not disputed. (iii) After the accident the injured was taken to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital and then to the CMC hospital , Coimbatore by the people who gathered at the scene of accident. Even though best treatment was given in the hospital, the said Kamalakannan died on 26.6.2002 at Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. He was in the hospital for 21 days. No amount was granted towards transport expenses and towards attender charges during that period for which the the claimants are entitled to. (iv) The sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the wife and the sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the minor female child is very meagre. (v) The sum of Rs.1,10,000/- granted towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills and the same cannot be and is not disputed. (vi) Since the deceased died after taking treatment for 21 days in the hospital, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental shock and agony, which is not disputed and the same is confirmed. (vii) The marginally higher multiplier adopted in this case and marginally excessive compensation, can be justified and adjusted towards attender charges and transport charges, for which no amount was granted and lesser compensation granted towards loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to the 4 year minor female child. (viii) Considering the above aspects the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.5,45,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award is of the year 2006. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Dharapuram, Erode 1 cc To M/s. B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.8616 C.M.A.No.692 of 2009 MBS(CO) SRA(27/4/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/