IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.663 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Ramakrishna Road, Salem, Kaspa & District. ... Appellant/4th Respondent vs. 1.Thottappan @ Chenniappan, 2.Muthayal, 3.Pappi, 4.Minor Nandini, 5.Minor Santhosh Kumar, 6.Golden Sun Industries, East Sambandam Street, RS Puram, Coimbatore & District. 7.National Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, 52, Oppanakarar Street, Coimbatore District. 8.Mohan Raj. (Minor respondents 4 and 5 are represented by their mother and guardian the 3rd respondent Pappi) (8th respondent is unnecessary party hence given up) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5 and respondents 1 to 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 30.12.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.187 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Bhavani. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 30.12.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.187 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Bhavani. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 12.5.2002. The deceased Ravi alias Sathasivam, aged 30 years, a cable TV operator and engaged in agricultural work, was proceeding in a motorcycle as pillion rider along with Murugan alias Muthusamy and Veluchamy. The two wheeler was driven by Murugan alias Muthusamy. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the two wheeler, the two wheeler hit the bus belonging to the appellant, the 4th respondent before the Tribunal. In that accident, the driver of the two wheeler, and the pillion rider Ravi alias Sathasivam died on the way to the hospital. The other person Veluchamy sustained injuries. The father aged 55 years, mother aged 52 years, wife aged 27 years, minor daughter aged 10 years and minor son aged 9 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the claimants, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of FIR dated 12.5.2002, Ex.A-2 is the photocopy of observation mahazar dated 12.5.2002, Ex.A-3 is the photocopy of rough sketch dated 12.5.2002, Ex.A-4 is the photocopy of post-mortem certificate dated 13.5.2002, Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of final investigation report, Ex.A-6 is the miscellaneous receipts of Nadupatti Panchayat office, Ex.A-7 is the photocopy of sale deed dated 13.3.1990 and Ex.A-8 is the copy of licence dated 22.3.2001. Mr.Udhayakumar, the administrative officer of the seventh respondent insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.R-1. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the 4th respondent before the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. With regard to negligence, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paras 9 to 16 of the award in answer to point No.1. The Tribunal stated that in the accident the driver of the two wheeler died. Further, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was not examined. There is no eye witness to the accident. Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1, observation mahazar Ex.A-2 and rough sketch Ex.A-3 and the oral evidence, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers, the accident happened. The Tribunal fixed the liability to compensate the claimants equally on the insurer of the two wheeler and the appellant transport corporation. It is stated that the insurance company, the insurer of the two wheeler, has not filed any appeal so far. There is no material placed by the appellant to controvert the finding of the Tribunal on negligence. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the drivers of both the vehicles and 50% liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation bus cannot be and is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal and the same is confirmed. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the award in answer to point No.2. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 30 years. Based on the profession tax receipts Ex.A-6 and sale deed Ex.A-7, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal adopted unit method and fixed the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.1,750/- per month (i.e.) Rs.21,000/- per annum. Based on the age of the deceased said to be 30 years, the Tribunal adopted 18 multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x 18 = Rs.3,78,000/-) as loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 9% interest as hereunder:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased Rs.3,78,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the parents and two minor children of the deceased Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.4,08,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is high. It is also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contended that the interest granted at 9% is also on the higher side. 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 in the year 2002. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident. (ii) It was stated that the deceased was a Cable TV Operator and an agriculturist owning 5.89 acres of agricultural land. His income was claimed at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has taken the monthly income as Rs.2,500/- which is very meagre and the same is not commensurate with minimum wages or living wages during the relevant time. (iii) 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. - 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 2002. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month as he was a cable TV operator and an agriculturist owning agricultural land to an extent of 5.89 acres. (iv) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the parents and two minor children is very very meagre. (v) Since the income fixed is very meagre and the fact that the compensation granted for loss of love and affection to the parents and two minor children is also very low, the higher multiplier "18" adopted in this case will compensate for the lesser income fixed coupled with lesser amount granted for loss of love and affection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vi) Considering the above aspects the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 9%. The appellant's liability fixed at 50% (i.e.) Rs.2,04,000/- with interest at 9% is confirmed. 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 appellant's share of award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled 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 Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Bhavani. 1 cc to Mr.P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, Sr. 8069 C.M.A.No.663 of 2009 BV (CO) kk 9/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/