1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A.No.19 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division-II) Limited, Chennimalai Road, Erode. ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1.Valarmathi 2.Pappayee Ammal @ Veerammal 3.Palani ... Respondents/Petitioners PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.569 of 2008, dated 18.03.2010, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Karur. For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash For Respondents: Mr.T.Selvakumaran J U D G M E N T The civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondent/transport Corporation against the award of compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- for the death of one Duraisamy, who was the victim of fatal accident occurred at 8.00 p.m. on 14.10.2008, while he was travelling in the bus belonging to the respondent/transport Corporation. 2. The date, time, place of the accident and cause of the accident as due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent's bus driver are not denied. The claimants are the wife and parents of the deceased and the claim petition is filed for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence let in, awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. The correctness of the award is challenged by the respondent/transport corporation by denying the liability as well as by disputing the quantum of compensation. The liability was denied on the ground that the deceased was solely responsible for the occurrence as he attempted to get down from the running bus even before the bus was stopped. The quantum of compensation is questioned on the ground that monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.3,750/- is on higher side. 3. As far as the first ground is concerned, the same is sought to be proved through R.W.1, who was the driver of the transport Corporation bus on the fateful day. In my considered view, the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting his evidence are but reasonable and acceptable. As rightly found out by the Tribunal, the theory that has been put forth herein is introduced only in the counter filed in the claim petition and no complaint is lodged either by the driver or the conductor of the bus in this regard. Further, this Court is of the view that the Conductor of the bus is more competent to prove the theory introduced on the side of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the respondent/Transport Corporation than the driver of the bus, who had no occasion to observe what occurred at the back side of the bus. Further, the evidence of P.W.2, who is the one of the co-passengers appears to be natural, cogent and contingent and the Tribunal has on overall appreciation of entire materials rightly concluded that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent/ transport corporation bus driver and the deceased did not in any manner contribute to the cause of the accident and the objection so raised herein is liable to be negatived. 4. Regarding the quantum of the compensation, the only objection raised herein is about the fixation of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,750/-. While according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was said to be earning his livelihood as coolie and in the absence of any evidence to prove his daily income, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.150/- per day for 25 days out of 30 days in a month cannot be factually accepted. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants would strenuously argue that having regard to the minimum wages, the monthly income determined by the Tribunal is to be accepted, as just and reasonable. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by the claimants in this regard. 6. In my considered view, considering the nature of the livelihood of the deceased, his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.150X20days) and after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family can be fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month and the loss of dependency of the claimants can be by adopting the multiplier of '16' assessed at Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000X12X16). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. After considering the age of the wife of the deceased, it would be reasonably enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The award is confirmed in other respects. 7. In the result, the award is passed for the compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- payable with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition and out of Rs.4,50,000/-, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively. All the three petitioners are permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge,Karur. +1 CC TO MR. M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 6468 +1 CC TO MR.T . SELVAKUMARAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 6687 CMA(MD)No.19 of 2011 15.03.2011 vsm/PAM 01.04.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/