IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.2.2009 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 147 of 2009 and M.P.No.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Salem Division), 12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1. L. Aari ... Respondents/Petitioner 2. P.Mani (Amended as per the order dated 11.03.2009 in CMP.147/2009) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 9.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1079 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge F.T.C.No. IV), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. For appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 9.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1079 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge F.T.C.No. IV), Coimbatore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 21.8.2005. The deceased Sathis, aged 30 years, working as a teacher, was travelling on a motor cycle as a pillion rider, which was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in that accident, both the rider of the motor cycle and the pillion rider https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sathis died. For the death of the pillion rider Sathis, the father aged 50 years and the mother aged 44 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,650/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim which was tried along with another claim, five witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 5. The father of the deceased Sathish was examined as P.W.2 along with other witnesses. Documents Exs. A1 to A10 were examined. No oral and documentary evidence was let in 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 fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. The Tribunal in this case based on Ex.A7, salary certificate and the possibility of higher income in the future, fixed the income at Rs.6,500/- of which 50% was deducted as loss of dependency to the parents equivalent to Rs.3,250/- p.m. The Tribunal adopted 11 multiplier and fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- (Rs.6500/- - Rs.3250/-) = Rs.3250/- x 11 = Rs.4,29,000/-). The Tribunal also granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.4,29,000/- 2 Medical bills Rs. 57,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the father and mother Rs. 16,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- 5 Total Rs.5,05,000/- However, in the award, the total has been wrongly stated at Rs.5,07,000/-. 6. The only contention in the appeal is that the income fixed at Rs.6,500/- p.m. based on the future prospectus is erroneous and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. This court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The deceased was a teacher, aged 30 years old and a bachelor earning member. The Tribunal fixed the correct multiplier of 11 which will be appropriate in view of the Apex Court decision in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242. (ii) Though the income of the deceased has been fixed as Rs.6,500/- p.m., the Tribunal deduced 50% as loss of income to the parents (i.e.) fixing the personal expenses of the deceased at 50%, which is not appropriate. In this case, under Ex.A7, salary certificate, the income of the deceased is Rs.4,650/- p.m. If 1/3rd of the same is deducted, still, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents will be Rs.3,000/-p.m. Since the loss of dependency is almost the same, there is no justification to reduce the quantum of compensation any further. Other amounts granted by the Tribunal are not disputed by the learned counsel for the appeallnt. 8. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal itself is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. 02.02.2009 BEIND MENTIONED This Appeal having been listed under the caption for Being Mentioned on Wednesday the Eleventh day of March 2009 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.02.2009 and made herein in the presence of aforesaid Advocate, the Court made the following order : This matter is listed today under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the counsel for the appellant. 2. Counsel for the appellant stated that by oversight the name of the first claimant L.Ari, the father of the deceased, alone has been shown as respondent in the memorandum of appeal and also in the miscellaneous petition and the name of second claimant P.Mani, who is the mother of the deceased has been omitted. She also filed an affidavit dated 11.03.2009 to that effect. Since the error is purely clerical and typographical, the statement of the counsel for the appellant is accepted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In view of the affidavit dated 11.03.2009 filed by the appellant's counsel explaining the above, and also the statement made by the counsel for the appellant, the Registry is directed to suitably amend the cause title in the memorandum of appeal grounds and also in the connected miscellaneous petition and the judgment indicating the name of P.Mani as respondent NO.2. The affidavit shall be indexed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge F.T.C.No. IV), Coimbatore. 1 cc To M/s.R.Srividhyalaxmi, Advocate, SR.4957. 1 cc To M/s.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.4813. CMA No. 147/2009 RSI(CO) RVL 26.03.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/