IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.4.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Civill Miscellaneous Appeal No.941 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-II, Chennimalai Road, Erode. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Santha, 2.S.Sarala, 3.N.Suganthi, 4.N.Kathiravan, 5.Kandammal. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.272 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 20.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.272 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 10.6.2005. The deceased P.Nambiyar, aged 56 years, Junior Inspector in a Co- operative Society, was travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 33 N 1796 belonging to the appellant transport corporation. The bus was stopped at the stop near Animal Husbandry Hospital, Avinashi. While the said Nambiyar was getting down from the bus, the driver suddenly started the bus, due to which the said Nambiyar fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died. The wife aged 49 years, two daughters aged 30 and 29 years, one son aged 27 years and mother aged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 76 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,996/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Dhanapal, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked, the details which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the printed copy of F.I.R., dated 17.6.2005, Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate, Ex.A-3 is the death certificate, Ex.A-4 is the legal heir certificate and Ex.A-5 is the pension payment order Mr.Karuppusamy, 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 version of eye witness P.W.2 is that the deceased was getting down from the bus in the bus stop near Avinashi, Animal Husbandry Hospital, and the bus was suddenly started by the driver of the bus. Therefore, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died. A case has been registered against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal based on the F.I.R. and the criminal case registered against the driver of the bus and coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 came to conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore, such finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with in paragraph 6 of the award in answer to point No.2. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Junior Inspector in the office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Erode. At the time of accident, the deceased was having 13 months service. Based on record, the last drawn salary of the deceased was fixed at Rs.7,994/- per month. According to pension payment order Ex.A-5 the first petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs.4,078/- per month as family pension. Considering the number of family members and after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deducting ¼ towards personal expenses of the deceased and also deducting the family pension, the Tribunal fixed the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.1,917/- per month. Since the deceased had left 13 months of service, the Tribunal calculated the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.24,921/- for the period pre-retirement. The Tribunal thereafter, stating that the deceased was likely take private employment after retirement and would earn a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, fixed the sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards loss of contribution to the family of the deceased for the period post retirement. Based on 8 years multiplier, the Tribunal fixed the pecuniary loss for the period post retirement at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 8 = Rs.1,92,000/-). In addition to that, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased for the period of pre retirement Rs. 24,921/- 2 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased for the period of post retirement Rs.1,92,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of the deceased Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to two daughters, one son and aged mother (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs. 20,000/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.2,51,920/- (rounded of to Rs.2,51,920/-) 6. In appeal, the counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier of 8 in addition to 13 months compensation in a case of death of a 56 years old person, is high. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation or reduced the same on the above grounds for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 10.6.2005. The deceased was working as a Junior Inspector in the office of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. His age was not disputed. His last drawn salary of Rs.7,994/- per month is also not in disputed. Therefore, the loss during the period of service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ determined by the Tribunal is justified. (ii) After retirement the deceased is entitled to pension and that has been recorded by the Tribunal. More or less, half of the salary the deceased would get pension. However, the family pension will be at reduced rate. (iii) The Tribunal adopted 8 multiplier in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988. (iv) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband is very low. (v) The sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the two daughters, one son and aged mother is very meagre. (vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.2,51,920/- 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 2005 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. + 1 CC to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi,Advocate,SR.14756 C.M.A.No.941 of 2009 GV(CO) EM/4.5.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/