IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.2.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.397 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 ....... The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Coimbatore. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1. D. Ranjeetham 2. Minor Seethalakshmi 3. Minor Kumaraguru 4. A. Govindasamy 5. G. Saratha (Respondents 2 and 3 Minors Rep by their Guardian Mother Ranjeetham, the first Respondent) ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.89 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Villupuram. For appellant : Mr. N. Anand ----- JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.89 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Villupuram. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 7.9.2004. In that accident, one Durairaj, aged 38 years, engaged in business of selling dry fish on a whole sale basis died. On his death, the wife aged 32 years, minor daughter aged 14 years, minor son aged 11 years, father aged 61 years and mother aged 55 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Govindasamy, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. One Arumugam, who is the leader of the fishermen union was examined as P.W.3 to speak about the income of the deceased. Documents Exs. P1 to P4 were marked. Ex.P3 is the copy of the driving licence. No oral and documentary evidence was let in 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 and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. He restricted his plea with regard to the quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal in this case fixed the age of the deceased as 38 years based on the post mortem certificate. His occupation as a wholesale business man in dry fish was accepted. P.W.3/ the leader of the fishermen union has deposed that the income of the deceased was Rs.500/- per day. The Tribunal in the absence of any material evidence, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day of which 1/3rd was deducted and the annual dependency was fixed at Rs.24,000/- p.a. The Tribunal, by adopting 16 multiplier, granted a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-) towards loss of pecuniary benefits. In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount 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.3,84,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the children and parents Rs. 20,000/- 5 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.4,16,000/- 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal in the case of death of 38 years old person is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation is to be reduced. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. (i) The accident in this case happened on 7.9.2004. The deceased is survived by a 32 year old wife, two minor children and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aged parents. It will be far fetched to call upon the wholesale dryfish merchant to file documents relating to his income when his earning itself will be on day today basis. In any event, for determination of the income, the following two 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, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2004. Therefore, the income of the deceased should have been fixed atleast at Rs.4,000/- or Rs.4,500/-. Assuming that the multiplier of 16 is marginally higher, the marginally higher multiplier will justify the compensation as the income taken is unreasonably low. If the income of the deceased is increased based on the living wages prevailing in the year 2004 and the multiplier is reduced to 13, the compensation will be much more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Further, meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection to the other claimants. 9. Considering all these factors, this court is unable to find any good reasons to reduce the compensation any further as also the interest granted at 7.5% p.a. as the accident happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 10. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Villupuram. 1 cc To Mr.N.Anand, Advocate, SR.1886 CMA No. 397 of 2009 RS(CO) SRA(11/03/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/