IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.2.2009 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 279 of 2009 and M.P.No.No.1 of 2009 .......... The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore. ... Appellant/Second Respondent vs. 1. Kalpana 2. Velathal 3. Karuppannan @ Nagulappa Gounder 4. Thirumalaisamy ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3 and (Given up in Appeal) first Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 11.4.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Udumalaipettai. For appellants : Mr. B. Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram R1 and R3 JUDGMENT Transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated dated 11.4.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Udumalaipettai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 3. The accident in this case happened on 31.10.2005. The deceased Balan @ Balasubramanian, 30 years old tractor driver died in the accident. The wife aged 27 years, mother and father, age not known have filed the claim for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In support of the claim, the wife was examined as P.W.1. One Sivakumar, eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Senthinathan, owner and employer of the deceased appellant was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs. A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.A6 is the driving licence of the deceased Balan. 5. According to the Claimant stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- p.m. However, no document was furnished. The Tribunal however fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses fixed the pecuniary loss to the dependents at Rs.2,000/- i.e. Rs.24,000/- p.a. and by adopting 17 multiplier, the total pecuniary loss was fixed at Rs.4,08,000/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.4,08,000/- 2 Transport expenses and damage to cloth Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 3,000/- 4 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.4,25,000/- 6. In appeal, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 17 adopted in the case of death of a 30 years old deceased is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. She relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 and in The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC). 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, who pleaded that the quantum of compensation is justifiable and reasonable. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. (i) The accident in this case happened on 31.10.2005. The deceased appellant was 30 years old and a tractor driver. The income fixed by the Tribunal is Rs.3,000/- p.m. in the absence of documentary evidence on record though the employer has been examined as P.W.3. 9. Insofar as the income is concerned, the following two decisions will be relevant:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. 10. Considering the date of the accident, which had happened in the year 2005, the income of the deceased should have been fixed at Rs.4,000/- or Rs.4,500/- p.m. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/-, i.e. Rs.48,000/- p.a., after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency would be Rs.32,000/- p.a. Eventhough, the multiplier is reduced, the total compensation will be much more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Further, meager amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the father and mother and also for loss of consortium to the wife. 11. Considering all these aspects, this Court finds no good reasons to reduce the compensation any further as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Udumalaipettai. 1 cc To Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.6117 1 cc To Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, Advocate, SR.6222 CMA No. 279 of 2009 SGL(CO) SRA(05/03/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/