IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3292 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri. ... Appellant/3rd Respondent vs. 1.Poomayil, 2.Sabarisundar, 3.Minor Sharimiladevi, 4.Minor Sasthasundar, 5.Radharukmani, 6.A.Ramesh. 7.United India Insurance Company Ltd., 35-J, M.B.T.Road, Gandhi Chowk, Ranipet Post, Vellore. (Minor respondents 3 and 4 are represented by their next friend and mother, the first respondent). ...Respondents/ Petitioners 1 to 5 and respondents 1 and 2 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 1.12.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.671 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Dharmapuri. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 1.12.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.671 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Dharmapuri. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 17.12.2003. The deceased Gnanasundar, said to be aged 45 years, engaged in cloth business, was travelling in the appellant transport corporation bus proceeding from Salem to Bangalore. On the way near Darmapuri National High way, a lorry was coming from opposite direction. Due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, there was a head-on-collision between both the vehicles. In that accident, the said Gnanasundar died. The wife aged 37 years, two sons aged 19 and 15 years respectively, daughter aged 17 years, mother aged 63 years and father aged 69 years filed a claim for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation stating that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Shyamsundar, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. The following documents were marked:- Ex.P-1 is the copy of F.I.R., Ex.P-2 is the copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-3 is the copy of insurance policy, Exs.P-4 and P-5 are the copies of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Reports and Ex.P-6 is the Legal heir certificate dated 18.5.2004, No oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 10 of the award onwards in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased was taken as 49 years based on Ex.P-2 post-mortem certificate. 6. Since no specific document has been filed to prove the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the annual loss of income to the family of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. Based on the age of the deceased, adopting 13 multiplier, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- towards pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the parents Rs.2,60,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the two sons and one daughter (Rs.10,000/- each) Rs. 30,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the mother of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- 5 Pain and suffering since the deceased was in hospital for 10 days after accident Rs. 25,000/- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,30,000/- but wrongly calculated as Rs.3,50,000/- The total comes to Rs.3,30,000/- only. The Tribunal, however, granted Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation. 7. As far as negligence is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence, is that the driver of both the vehicles were rash and negligence and caused the accident and accordingly, liability was apportioned on the appellant transport corporation as well as the insurer of the lorry. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering on the ground that the deceased after the accident suffered serious injuries and one leg was amputated and thereafter he died. 9. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 13 is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation is to be reduced. 10. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2003. The deceased was engaged in cloth business and was supporting wife and three children, aged father and mother. The income taken by the Tribunal is only Rs.2,500/- where it should have been marginally higher. (ii) The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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. 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 2003. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, who was engaged in cloth business and also considering the accident which is of the year 2003, the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month. (iii) No amount has been granted to the wife towards loss of consortium. No amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection to the father of the deceased on the death of his son. The wife can be granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and the father can be granted Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The wrong calculation made by the Tribunal can be adjusted by these amounts. (iv) Since the income taken by the Tribunal is lower, even if the multiplier is marginally higher that will compensate for the same. (v) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed since the accident happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2005. (vi) There is no good reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal by way of reduction. 11. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ ts Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To Additional District Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Dharmapuri. + 1 c.c. to Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate. S.R.No.59106. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M. Selvam, Advocate. S.R.No.58930. Judgment in C.M.A.No.3292 of 2008 JSV (CO) GSK 26.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/