IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2009 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 1278 of 2003 Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam-Dn.II) Ltd., Tiruchirappalli rep. By its Managing Director, Trichy Taluk & District Munsif .. Appellant/1st Respondent Vs. 1. Selvi 2. Dhanalakshmi(minor) rep. By her mother and next friend Selvi. 3. Indirani 4. Sudha 5. Jothimani 6. The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvarur Town and District Munsifi .. Respondents/Petitioners/ respondents 2 & 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 08.1.2003 made in MCOP No. 976 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nagapattinam. For Appellant : Ms. S. Geetha for M/s.Rajinish Pathiyil For Respondents : Mr. T. Ravikumar – R1 to R4 JUDGMENT The transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 08.1.2003 made in MCOP No. 976 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nagapattinam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 27.1.2001. The deceased Anbu @ Anbalagan, a lorry driver, aged 30 years, was driving his lorry from Mannarkudi to Vadugoor when the lorry was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. In that accident, the driver of the lorry died. On his death, the wife aged 25 years, minor daughter aged 3 years, mother aged 45 years and sister aged 20 years filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the cleaner of the lorry was examined as P.W.2 and one Duraisingam, who had witnessed the accident and lodged the F.I.R., was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs. A1 to A7 were marked Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the returned copy application. Ex.A3 is the copy of the express report. Ex.A4 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.A5 is the copy of the M.V.I. report in respect of lorry. Ex.A6 is the copy of M.V.I. Report in respect of bus. Ex.A7 is the legal heirship certificate. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ the first respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant, who is the first respondent before the Tribunal contended before the Tribunal that there was an element of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, who died in the accident and that plea was negatived by the Tribunal. The very same plea is made in this appeal as well. However, on going through the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is unable to find any material to support such a plea. Appellant has failed to examine any witness or produced any document to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased lorry driver. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence stands confirmed. 5. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal after fixing the age of the deceased as 30 years, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased fixed the contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.24,000/- per annum. Based on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal, by adopting multiplier of 17 granted a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-) towards loss of pecuniary benefits. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.4,08,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 4 Rs. 6,000/- Total Rs.4,21,000/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation stating that the multiplier of 17 is on the higher side and the interest is marginally higher. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/ claimants, who justified the award stating that the income of the deceased though claimed as Rs.6,000/- has been unreasonably reduced to Rs.3,000/- p.m. and meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection to the other claimants. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. (i) The deceased is a lorry driver, aged 30 years. The accident in this case happened on 27.1.2001. (ii) The deceased was supporting the family of wife, minor child, sister and the mother. Therefore, his income would be reasonably higher during the relevant time. (iii) Keeping in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 and in The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC), the income of the deceased a lorry driver should have been fixed atleast Rs. 4,000/- or Rs.4,500/-. (iv) A Meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection to the minor child, mother and sister. (v) No amount has been granted towards loss of estate. (vi) Therefore, even if the multiplier and the rate of interest is marginally higher as contended, since the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is very low and meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affection to the other claimants and since no amount has been granted towards loss of estate, the marginally higher multiplier and the rate of interest will compensate for the lesser amount granted on other heads. Therefore, the quantum of compensation and the entire award is justified. 9. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant states that entire award amount has been deposited. It is stated that claimants 1 and 3 have been permitted to withdraw certain amount as per the order of this Court dated 4.7.2003. They are entitled to withdraw the balance amount due to them except the minor. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Nagapattinam. CMA No. 1278 of 2003 RSM(CO) EM/19.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/