IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.11.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3541 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem Division, Salem. 636 007. ...Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1.Annalakshmi 2.Vallarasi 3.Minor Silambarasan (Minor rep. By next friend and mother first respondent) 4. Seerangayee ...Respondents/petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 23.4.2008 in MCOP No. 1277 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Additional District Court and Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Salem. For Appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this challenging the award dated 23.4.2008 in MCOP No. 1277 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court and Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Salem. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 4.11.2000. The deceased Anbalagan, said to be a tomato merchant, aged 38 years, was riding a cycle when he was hit by the appellant transport Corporation bus. In that accident, the said Anbalagan died. The wife aged 33 years, daughter aged 18 years, son aged 16 years another daughter aged 13 years and mother https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aged 60 years have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. In support of the claim petition, the wife was examined as P.W.1. One Sundararaj, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the copy of the death certificate. Ex.A4 is the legal heirship certificate. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal one Sethu, driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. According to the claimants, the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- p.m. by trading in tomato and Rs.2000/- p.m. by milk vending business. The Tribunal however did not accept the income of Rs.6,000/- p.m. claimed on the ground that only oral evidence has been adduced and there is no other document to support the income of the deceased as above. The income of the deceased was however fixed as Rs.3,000/- p.m. 5. Considering the age of the deceased and also taking into consideration the age of the wife, two daughters and one son, the Tribunal by adopting 12 multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-. (Rs.3,000/- -Rs.1,000/-= Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 12 = Rs.2,88,000/-) 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.2,88,000/- 2 Transport expenses and funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 23,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs.3,38,500/- 6. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimant is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. He has stated that the deceased was 38 years old and therefore, the Tribunal should have adopted lesser multiplier and reduced the compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. The accident in this case happened in the year 2000 and the deceased was a tomato merchant and also a milk vendor. Though the above said claim was negatived in the absence of specific proof, his income was taken as Rs.3,000/- p.m. The said amount appears to be marginally lower considering the fact that he was supporting his wife, three children and aged mother. 9. The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha 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. Hence, the income of the deceased has to be marginally higher. Consequently, the compensation. 10. The actual multiplier in a case of death of 38 years person, as per second schedule is 16 whereas, in the present case 12 multiplier has been adopted. Other amounts granted by the Tribunal under conventional heads are just and reasonable and does not require any reduction and are confirmed. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. is also confirmed as the accident in this case happened in the year 2000 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 11. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge and Special Judge (E.C.Act), Salem. + 1 c.c. to Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate. S.R.No.64007. CMA No.3541 of 2008 CK (CO) GSK 29.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/