IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.658 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Vellaiammal, 2.Uma, 3.Kumar. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.7.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Attur. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 28.7.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Attur. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 14.2.2004. The deceased Varatharaj, aged 40 years, a coolie, was riding his bicycle on Attur-Cuddalore Main Road. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said Varatharaj. In that accident, the said Varatharaj died on the spot. The wife aged 38 years, daughter 21 years and son aged 19 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Thathaiyan, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR dated 14.2.2004, Ex.A-2 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 14.2.2004, Ex.A-3 is the copy of rough sketch dated 14.2.2004, Ex.A-4 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 15.2.2004, Ex.A-5 is the copy of charge sheet dated and Ex.A-6 is the legal heir certificate dated 29.4.2004. Mr.Balasubramanian, the conductor of the appellant transport corporation bus, the respondent before the Tribunal was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the award in answer to point No.1. Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1, rough sketch Ex.A-3, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report Ex.A-4 and charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus Ex.A-5, and the oral evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident, the Tribunal held that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the accident happened. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits as the driver of the bus was not examined. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability to compensate the claimants on the appellant transport corporation. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation bus is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. The only contention seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the award in answer to point No.2. Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-2, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 40 years. In the petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as collie. The wife of the deceased stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing work in a mill and also doing agricultural work and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ spraying pesticides. Since, no document was filed with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day (i.e.) Rs.2,250/- per month (i.e.) Rs.27,000/- per year. Based on the age of the deceased said to be 40 years and in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and fixed the pecuniary loss of income to the family of the deceased at Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,32,000/-). After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- as pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 9% interest as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased Rs.2,88,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the daughter and the son on the death of their father Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 10,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.3,12,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is high. He also contended that the interest granted at 9% is excessive. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 14.2.2004. The deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident. (ii) In the petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as collie. The wife of the deceased stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing work in a mill and also doing agricultural work and spraying medicine. Since, no document was filed with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day (i.e.) Rs.2,250/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per month, which is low and the same is not commensurate with minimum wages or living wages at the time of accident. (iii) 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. 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 2004. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month at the time of accident. (iv) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the daughter and son is very meagre. (v) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased is very low. (vi) The sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards transport expenses and the sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards funeral expenses are reasonable and the same are confirmed. (vii) Since the income fixed is low affecting the total compensation and the compensation granted for loss of love and affection to the two children and loss of consortium to the wife is also very low, the marginally higher multiplier "16" adopted in this case and also the marginally higher interest granted at 9% will justify the award. (viii) Considering all the above aspects the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To The Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Attur. + 1 CC To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate SR NO.10587 Judgment in C.M.A.No.658 of 2009 GV {CO} TP/20.4.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/