IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.4.2009 CORAM:- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 2449 of 2003 ..... The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. Nagammal 2. Muniyan .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the order and decree dated 26.12.2002 passed in MCOP No. 428 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Special Court) Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran For Respondents : Mr. P. Mani ........ JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 26.12.2002 passed in MCOP No. 428 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Special Court) Krishnagiri. 2. The fatal accident in this case happened on 1.2.2002. The deceased Ravi, 23 years old bachelor earning member, was riding a motor cycle near Uthankarai when the appellant transport corporation bus coming from the opposite direction, hit the motor cycle and in that accident, the said Ravi died on the spot. Mother aged 40 years, father aged 45 years are the claimants. On the death of his son, they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation stating that their son was working as an assistant driller in a bore well company. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. According to the claimants, the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- p.m. The father was examined as P.W.1 and one Saravanan, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Ex. P1, copy of the first information report and Ex.P2, copy of the post mortem certificate were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed 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 claimant is not disputed. Such finding of the tribunal stands confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was 23 years old and working as a Bore well driller, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. stating that no document was filed. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.24,000/- p.a. The Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier and determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-). In addition to the above, the Tribunal granted compensation on 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.4,08,000/- 2 Mental agony Rs. 50,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.4,60,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the deceased was a bachelor earning member and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted 17 multiplier and the parents are not entitled to higher compensation. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 and stated that the proper multiplier will be 12 and not 17. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, who stated that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.3,000/- is very low. Further, the deceased was in prime youth and the possibility of higher income will be there. He pleaded that the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted for mental agony can be adjusted towards loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ love and affection. He further stated that no amount was granted for transport expenses and very meager amount has been granted towards funeral expenses. 8. In the present case, the deceased was a bachelor earning member. As far as the income is concerned, the following two decisions will be kept in mind. (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. Therefore, the income should have been fixed atleast Rs.3,500/- p.m. As far as the income is concerned, there is no material to deny the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in fixing the income at Rs.3,000/-p.m.. In view of the Apex Court decisions cited above, and considering the period of accident, the income should have been fixed at Rs.3,500/- p.m. As far as the multiplier of 17 is concerned, since the deceased was a bachelor earning member, the possibility of the deceased getting married and the compensation getting reduced to the dependents in the course of time is always there. Therefore, as against the multiplier of 17, in the present case, the proper multiplier will be 12. Accordingly, the total compensation towards loss of pecuniary benefits will be Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 12 -1/3 = Rs.3,36,000/-). The mother will be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the father will be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection on the death of their son. Further, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.4,08,000/- Rs.3,36,000/- 2 Mental agony Rs. 50,000/- -- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the mother Rs.15,000/- and father Rs.10,000/- --- Rs. 25,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 5 Transport expenses --- Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.4,60,000/- Rs.3,68,000/- 9. Since the accident happened on 1.2.2002 and the award was passed on 26.12.2002, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands modified to 7.5% in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya). 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.3,68,000/- from Rs.4,60,000/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5% p.a. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs. (v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Special Court) Krishnagiri. Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, SR.13135 1 cc To Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, SR.13205 CMA No. 2449 of 2003 PA(CO) SRA(11/6/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/