IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.10.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3168 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 ............ The Managing Director, The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division I, No. 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem. .. Appellant/ 1st Respondent Vs. 1. Mari 2. Minor Satyaraj 3. Minor Vijayakanth 4. Minor Sarathkumar 5. Minor Jayanthi 6. Minor Illaiyaraja 7. Minor suganthi 8. Irusayi .. Respondents/Petitioners (Respondents 2 to 7 are minors represented by their N/F guardian Mother Mari) Appeal filed under under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 20.10.2006 in MCOP No. 1523 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court I), Salem. For Appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : --- -------- JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 20.10.2006 in MCOP No. 1523 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court I), Salem. 2. The only contention raised by the counsel for appellant in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. The finding of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimants is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. 3. The fatal accident in this case happened on 23.8.2005. The deceased Ravi, a brick worker, aged 38 years was walking on the Omalur- Salem main road when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus and he died on the spot. The wife aged 34 years, minor children aged 15 years, 13 years, 11 years, 9 years, 7 years and 4 years respectively and the mother of the deceased aged 65 years have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. According to them, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. In the absence of any material to support the income claimed, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.2,000/- p.m. and by following the unit method deducted Rs.330/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was fixed as Rs.1670/- p.m. The Tribunal by applying 16 multiplier, determined the total pecuniary loss in a sum of Rs.3,20,640/- (Rs.1670/- x 12 x 16=Rs.3,20,640/-) In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts 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.3,20,640/- 2 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 20,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the 6 children (Rs.15,000/- each x 6 = Rs.90,000/-) Rs. 90,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5 Transport charges Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs.4,36,640/- rounded of to Rs.4,37,000/- 4. In appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal in the case of death of a 35 years old man is on the higher side. 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). 5. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the contention that the multiplier is higher for the following reasons. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The deceased was engaged in making of bricks. For the purpose of determining the income of the skilled persons like that of the deceased, the following two decisions namely the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Apex Court will be relevant. (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. 6. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2005. 7. In the present case, though the income at Rs.6,000/- claimed by the claimants cannot be justified, the deceased would have earned atleast a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m. as he was supporting the family of six minor children, wife and mother. Considering all the above aspects, the income of the deceased, can be fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month. Further, no amount was granted for the mother towards loss of love and affection on the death of the son. Even assuming that the multiplier is to be reduced, if the income is taken as Rs.3,500/-p.m., and 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses and 12 multiplier is adopted, the compensation would be more than what has been granted by the Tribunal. 8. Considering all the above aspects, this court does not find any good reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal by way of reduction. The interest at 7.5% p.a. is also reasonable as the accident happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2006 and hence, the same is confirmed. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court I), Salem. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijaalakshmi. Advocate, SR.No.58491 CMA No. 3168 of 2008 RSM(CO) SRA(13/11/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/