IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.04.2008 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN C.M.A. No.2942 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 7. ..... Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. Kannammal 2. Rajamani 3. Kala 4. Balakrishnan 5. Chittayi .....Respondents/Petitioners Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1985 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Judge, Salem. -------- For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran J U D G M E N T This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.03.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1985 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / First Additional District Judge, Salem. 2. The appellant herein was the respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the M.C.O.P had been filed by the respondents/ claimants, seeking compensation for the death of their breadwinner of their family, in the motor accident, that had taken place on 16.11.2005 at about 3.15 p.m on the Salem-Namakkal main https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ road, near Ammapalayam lake area. The respondents / claimants being the widow, daughters, son and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition, seeking a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 before the trial court, apart from examining P.W.2. On the side of the respondents / claimants, copy of the FIR, dated 16.11.2005, registered by Mallur Police Station in Cr.No.352/05 has been marked as Ex.P.1, apart from marking a copy of postmortem certificate of the deceased as Ex.P.2. The Motor Inspector's Report relating to the motor vehicle, which caused the accident was marked as Ex.P.3. The copy of the final report filed against the driver of the motor vehicle by the police has been marked as Ex.P.4. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1, the driver of the vehicle has been examined. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the motor accident had been occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belongs to the appellant herein. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- to be paid with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Transport Corporation. 5. Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal could have applied only the multiplier 10, as per the II Schedule under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following decisions : 1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., vs. S.Rajapriya & Ors, 2005 (4) SC 87 2. APSRTC vs. M.Ramadevi, I (2008) ACC 356 (SC) 6. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at a minimum of Rs.2,500/- per month, but has not deducted any amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. 7. Per contra, Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the deceased was a batch worker in the Railways Department, and was earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. As per the Workmen's Compensation Act, the minimum income of the deceased could have been fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed only a meagre amount as income of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the breadwinner of the family consisting his wife, first claimant, children, claimants 2 to 4 and his mother, the fifth claimant. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the Tribunal could have fixed the monthly income of the deceased, at least at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount for his personal expenses, the Tribunal could have decided the annual contribution to the family by the deceased at Rs.24,000/- (2000 x 12). 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant cited the decision, which relates to the person died as an unmarried person, wherein as cited by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, in the decision, H.S.Ahammed Hussain vs. Irfan Ahammed, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 52, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for a married person, who died at the age of 40, the correct multiplier is 15, as per II Schedule, read with Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The II Schedule clearly stipulates the multiplier 15, if the age of the deceased is above 40 years, but not exceeding 45 years. Admittedly, in the instant case, the age of the deceased was 45 years and he was a married person. Therefore, there is no error in applying the multiplier 15 in computing the loss of financial assistance to the respondents/claimants. 10. Considering the annual contribution of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- and applying the multiplier 15, the loss of income to the dependents of the deceased is arrived at Rs.3,60,000/-. It is seen that the age of the wife of the deceased was 43 years on the date of accident and therefore, I find it reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- towards her consortium. For transport to hospital, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,000/- and for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the facts and circumstances, the claimants are entitled to a compensation not less than Rs.5,000/-. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded a just and proper compensation, of Rs.4,10,000/- to be paid with 7.5% interest and proportionate cost but not in the appropriate heads properly. 11. Considering the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the same is just and reasonable which need not be interfered with in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and therefore, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. In the result, confirming the award passed by the court below, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. tsvn To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First Additional District Judge, Salem. + 1 CC To Mr.V.Ramesh Advocate SR NO.21474 + 1 CC To Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran Advocate SR NO.21046 C.M.A .No.2942 of 2007 LA {CO} TP/25.6.08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/