IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.9.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.2988 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division II, Chennimalai Road, Erode-9. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Vasantha, 2.Manoranchitham, 3.K.S.Babu, 4.Kolanthaiammal, 5.A.P.Nagarajan (5th respondent - Driver - given up in appeal) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 4 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 23.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court II), Gobichettipalayam. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi For respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 23.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court II), Gobichettipalayam. 2. Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel represents that he filed vakalat for the respondents 1 to 4 in SR.No.80326 today. 3. At the time of admission, the only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus who caused the accident and the death, and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. 5. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 8.1.2005. The deceased Shanmugam, said to be engaged in cattle business, aged about 52 years, was travelling in a TVS 50 moped, when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the said Shanmugam died. The wife aged 48 years, daughter aged 22 years, son aged 20 years and mother aged 67 years filed a claim in a sum of Rs.7,88,000/- as compensation stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. In support of the claim, the son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Ramesh and M.R.Doraisamy, the eye witnesses to the accident were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.P-1 to P-7 were filed on behalf of the claimants as detailed below:- Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. dated 8.1.2005, Ex.P-2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report, Ex.P-3 is the copy of sketch dated 8.1.2005, Ex.P-4 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 9.1.2005, Ex.P-5 is the copy of final report dated 1.2.2005, Ex.P-6 is the death certificate dated 19.1.2005 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P-7 is the legal heir certificate dated 2.2.2005 On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, one A.P.Nagarajan the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 7. The compensation was decided in paragraph 7 of the award to answer in point No.2. The income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.5,000/- per month stating that the deceased was doing cattle business. However, no documents were filed to prove the business and the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased was, therefore, taken as Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted unit method and determined the contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,300/- per month and by adopting 11 multiplier fixed the total pecuniary loss as Rs.3,03,600/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal granted other amounts under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.3,03,600/- 2 Loss of love and affection to wife, daughter, son and mother Rs 10,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,18,600/- 8. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, sought for reduction of compensation. 9. This court is unable to accept such contention and to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 8.1.2005. It is not in dispute that the deceased was engaged in cattle business. His income was claimed at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has taken the income at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month which is very meagre and the same is not commensurate with the living wages of the relevant period. (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. - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 2005. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month. (iii) If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per year, after deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased the loss of annual contribution to the family of the deceased would be Rs.32,000/-. Even if lesser multiplier, viz., 9 is adopted the total pecuniary loss would be Rs.2,88,000/-. (iv) No amount was granted for loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. (v) The amount of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the wife, daughter, son and mother is very meagre. (vi) In this view of the matter, appellant has not made out a case to reduce the compensation any further. 10. Considering all these aspects, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any reduction, as also the interest granted at 7.5%, since the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 11. 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 entitled to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court II), (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Gobichettipalayam 1 cc to Mr.Ma.P. Thangavel, Advocate, Sr. 55731 1 cc to Mrs.B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR. 55030 C.M.A.No.2988 of 2008 NM (CO) kk 22/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/