IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.9.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.2712 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salemedu, Villupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Jaya, 2.Minor Muthulakshmi, 3.Minor Sripriya, 4.Chellammal. (Minor respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother, next friend 1st respondent) ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Villupuram. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh JUDGMENT Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 17.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Villupuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 3.8.2005 at GST Road at Azeez Nagar. The deceased Natarajapathi, son of Iyyasami said to be aged 40 years, an agricultural and Vegetable seller, was standing on the side of bus stop. He was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the said Natarajapathi died. The wife, aged 32 years, two minor daughters aged 14 and 12 years respectively and the mother aged 60 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.7 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning 5,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Thiru Venkatraman, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. The details of the documents are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. dated 4.8.2005, Ex.P-2 is the photocopy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 4.8.2005 and Ex.P-3 is the post-mortem certificate dated 4.8.2005 One Mr.Nainamalai, timekeeper of the appellant transport corporation was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1, timekeeper as he did not witness the accident. The driver of the bus was not examined. P.W.2 is the eye witness to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and he was responsible for the accident and the death of the deceased. Such finding is not controverted by any other evidence on record. Accordingly, the finding of negligence and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is confirmed. 5. As far as compensation is concerned, the same was decided in paragraph 9 onwards in answer to point No.2 of the award. As per post-mortem certificate Ex.P-3, the age of the deceased was taken as 40 years. The plea of the wife of the deceased that her husband was an agricultural coolie was accepted. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. After deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per year. The Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and fixed the total pecuniary loss to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ family of the deceased at Rs.3,84,000/-. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.3,84,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- 4 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,93,500/- 6. Counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation stating that 16 multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side for the death of 40 years old agricultural coolie. 7. This court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation in this case for the following reasons:- (i) The income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is not in dispute. According to the appellant if multiplier 13 is adopted, the total pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased would be Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-) (ii) No amount was granted to the two minor children and the aged mother towards loss of love and affection. (iii) No amount was granted towards transport expenses. (iv) A very meagre amount was granted towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and also for funeral expenses. (v) The wife of the deceased, in this case, will be entitled to at least a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. The two minor children will be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- each totally Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The mother of the deceased will be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection on the death of her son. The claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses. If the above amounts are added with the loss of pecuniary benefits of Rs.3,12,000/- based on 13 multiplier and the sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards funeral expenses and the sum of Rs.2,500/- granted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ towards loss of estate, the difference between the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the amount now calculated by this Court, is only a marginal. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation by way of reduction. 8. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed, since the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award of the Tribunal is 2007. 9. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant prays eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1.The Principal District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram. 1 cc to Mr.V. Ramesh, Advocate, SR. 49534 C.M.A.No.2712 of 2008 NM (CO) kk 22/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/