IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 772 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai.2 ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1. N.Vatchala 2. N.Meena (Minor) 3. N.Manju (Minor) 4. N.Latha (Minor) 5. Sengani ... Respondents/Petitioners (Minors R2 to R4 rep by their mother and next friend the 1st respondent) . . . Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.11.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 440 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC-IV) Poonamallee. . . . For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran . . . JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 24.11.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 440 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC-IV) Poonamallee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 30.9.2002. The deceased Natarajan, employed in an export company was riding a cycle and was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus and he died on the spot. The wife aged 33 years, three minor daughters aged 16 years, 12 years and 9 years respectively and the mother aged 60 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,03,000/- as compensation. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Janakiraman, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the salary certificate. Ex.A4 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.A5 is the copy of the charge sheet. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed and such finding is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m. based on the Ex.A3/ salary certificate and the annual income was fixed at Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and fixed the total loss of pecuniary benefits at Rs.4,80,000/- of which 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of benefits to the dependents was determined in a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. The Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,20,000/- 2 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the three children Rs. 15,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,45,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In appeal, it is contended that the multiplier of 16 adopted in the case of death of 40 years old earning member is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in the quantum of compensation cannot be accepted for the following reasons. (i) The accident in this case happened in September 2002. Though the income of the deceased was claimed as Rs.4,500/- p.m. and that has been determined by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/-. The deceased supported the family consisting of the wife, three minor daughters and the mother and was doing a business also. There is every possibility of getting higher income in the future. (ii) 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. 8. 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. Hence, considering the future prospects, higher income can be taken into consideration. Therefore, marginally higher multiplier of 16 justifies the total compensation . Further, meager amounts have been granted towards loss of love and affection to the three minor daughters, who are yet to be married and loss of consortium to the wife. No amount was granted for loss of love and affection to the mother. 9. Considering all these aspects, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction or modification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Ra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (No.IV), Poonamallee. + 1 cc to Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate SR No.11590 KA(CO) SR/29.4.2009 CMA No 772 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/