IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3499 of 2008 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2008 The Managing Director, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation ltd., Villupuram ..Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Gowri 2.Gowthamarajan 3.Premalatha 4.Thaialnayagi ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decretal order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Salem in MACTOP.NO.1525 of 2005 dated 8.2.2008. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh ----- JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 8.2.2008 passed in MACTOP.NO.1525 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,( I Additional District Judge), Salem. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 19.8.2005. The deceased Rajendran, a Conductor of the Transport Corporation bus was travelling in the bus and the said bus hit against a lorry which was standing on a main road and in that accident he died. The wife aged about 40 years, Son aged about 20 years, daughter aged about 19 years and mother aged about 74 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One P.Dandapani, Accounts Officer of the Transport https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corporation was examined as PW2 and one Sekar, the eye witness was examined as PW.3. Exs.P.1 to P8 were marked. As per list of exhibits, Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R, Ex.P-2 is the photocopy of post-mortem certificate. Ex.P-3 is the death certificate of Thialnayagi, the 4th respondent Ex.P.4 is the death certificate of Rajendran, Ex.P.5 is true copy of legal heir certificate. Ex.P.6 series are the medical bills for Rs.28,167/-, Ex.P.7 is the letter from Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram, In para 11 of award it is stated that ExP.7 is copy of Service Register and Ex.P.8 is the salary certificate of the deceased Rajendran for the month of July 2005. On behalf of the appellant Transport Corporation, one Boobathy (driver) was examined as RW1 and no document was marked on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus who is responsible for the accident and the death and consequential liability fixed on the appellant Transport Corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the appellant counsel and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 6. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunal from Paragraph 11 onwards. As per the postmortem Certificate Ex.P.2., the age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. As per Ex.A7, the date of birth of the deceased is 17.4.1963. Therefore, on the date of accident, i.e. 19.8.2005, the deceased was 42 years, 4 months 2 days old. The Tribunal, therefore fixed the age of the deceased as 42 years. Following the ratio of Apex Court decision in The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs. Sripriya and others reported in 2007 (1) TNMAC 319 (SC), the Tribunal adopted 12 Multiplier. According to the evidence of PW2 the officer of the Transport Corporation, Ex.A7 copy of Service Register and Ex.P.8 Salary Certificate the income of the deceased was Rs.7703/- per month. Taking into consideration the future prospects, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,004/- per month, of which 1/3 was deducted in a sum of Rs.3001/- and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.6003/-. per month. The pecuniary loss was, therefore, determined as follows: " Rs.6003 x 12 x 12 = Rs.8,64,432/-" In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.8,64,432/- 2 Loss of love and affection to wife and two children Rs. 15,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 12,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs. 28,170/- 5 Transport and Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,500/- 6 Mental Agony Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.9,27,102/- 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased at the time of death even as per the oral and documentary evidence was Rs.7703/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the higher income of Rs.9,004/- for the purpose of determining the total compensation. Therefore,the compensation has to be reduced. 8.Having heard the counsel for appellant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons: (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The age of the deceased was 42 years and he had 16 years of service in the department. Further, the prospects of higher income during 16 years service has to be considered as a relevant factor. In the case of death of 42 years old, the Multiplier in terms of second Schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is 15, whereas in this case 12 Multiplier alone has been taken. Therefore, the marginally higher income as fixed by the Tribunal can be accepted since a lesser multiplier has been adopted in this case. (ii) The future prospects is one of the facts that has to be kept in mind, while determining the compensation in a case of death, particularly when the deceased is in regular employment in a Government owned Transport Corporation. (iii) In this case, the wife is 40 years old, the daughter is 19 years old. The widow has to fend for her life and that of the children having lost https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the husband at a prime age. (iv) Considering all these aspects, this Court does not find any good reason to reduce the compensation as also the interest at 7.5%, as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award passed in 2008. 9. Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. The Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed and on such deposit, the claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the said amount as apportioned by the Tribunal. 10. In the result portion of the award, it is stated that the 4th claimant Thaialnayaki died on 21.2.2007 and the claim petition as against 4th claimant was dismissed. EX.P.3 is the death certificate of the fourth claimant Thaialnayaki. As such, her name in the appeal memorandum ought not to have been included. The counsel for the appellant is directed to avoid such mistake in future. The Registry also should have been very careful in future. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar VJY To 1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Salem Copy to The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Madras,Madras. (Information and issue direction to the concerned staff and report) +1cc to Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate Sr 63915 KLT (CO) km/27.1. C.M.A.No.3499 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/