IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.4.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.945 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore) Division II, Chennimalai Road, Erode District. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Indhumathi, 2.Anil Kumar Shah, 3.Mahendran. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 20.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1132 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 20.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1132 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 14.7.2006. The deceased Shasikanth, said to be aged 70 years, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ watch shop owner, was standing on the side of the mud road. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said Shasikanth. In that accident, the said Shasikanth died. The wife aged 65 years and two sons aged 45 and 42 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Moorthy, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the printed copy of FIR, dated 14.7.2006, Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate of the deceased, Ex.A-3 is the death certificate of the deceased, Ex.A-4 is the legal heir certificate of the deceased and Ex.A-5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report of the bus. Mr.Muthusamy, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant is not seriously disputed in the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. 5. As far as compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the award in answer to point No.2. As far as income is concerned, there is no dispute that the deceased was running a watch shop. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.24,000/- per annum. Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-2, the age of the deceased was fixed as 72 years. Considering the age of the deceased and also the age of the claimants, the Tribunal adopted 5 multiplier in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and granted the compensation towards total pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased at Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 5 = Rs.1,20,000/-). The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.1,20,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased on the death of her husband Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.1,28,000/- 6. In appeal, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 5 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of 72 years old earning member is high. 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 14.7.2006. Admittedly, the deceased was running a watch shop. He was supporting his wife. (ii) In so far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, keeping in view of the following decisions:- (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 2006. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, ought to have fixed atleast at Rs.3,500/- per month as he was running a watch shop. This will be keeping in line with the living wages and the cost of living during the period of accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband is very meagre. No amount was granted towards loss of love and affection to the two sons. (iv) In terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988, for the age above 65 years, 5 multiplier can be adopted. (v) Even if the multiplier of 5, according to the appellant, is marginally higher, it can be adjusted towards meagre compensation granted towards loss of consortium to the wife and no compensation granted towards loss of love and affection to the two sons and also on account of the lesser income fixed by the tribunal. (vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award is of the year 2008. 8. 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 and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are permitted 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 Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore at Tiruppur. +1cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate Sr 14757 TS(CO) km/7.5. C.M.A.No.945 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/