IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.11.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 1925 of 2003 The managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Dvn. I) Ltd., Villupuram 605 602. (Cause title accepted vide order dated 30.7.2003 made in CMP No. 11037/2003) .. Appellant/ respondent Vs. 1.Loganayagi 2.Minor Thanigaivelu 3.Minor Bhagavathi 4.Minor Santhanalakshmi 5. Vadivelu (minors rep. By their mother the first respondent Longanayagi) .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 24.1.2003 in MCOP No. 610 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court) Maduranthagam. For Appellant : Mr. A. Babu For Respondents: No Appearance JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 24.1.2003 in MCOP No. 610 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court) Maduranthagam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 12.9.1996. The deceased Thamizhmani, aged 35 years engaged in Weaving and Agriculture work was walking on the road when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. He suffered grievous injuries and died. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The wife aged 31 years, minor son aged 16 years, two daughters aged 14 years and 12 years respectively and father aged 58 years have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim petition, the wife was examined as P.W.1 and one Venu, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.A4 is the witness summon issued by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu to P.W.2. Ex.A5 is the copy of the charge sheet filed against one Shanmugam, driver of the bus. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. Documents Exs.R1 to R9 were marked on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. Ex.R1 to R6 are payment receipts (entrance fee) at various depots in the bus route. Ex.R7 is the additional statement. Ex.R8 is the details of depots of the transport corporation. Ex.R9 is the payment receipt issued by the appellant transport corporation. 4. Respondent has filed documents to show that the vehicle was checked at various depots and there is no proof of any accident. The visit to the depots was supported by payment receipts, which were marked as exhibits. 5. The Tribunal however disbelived the documents filed by the appellants stating that the time, date and the actual name of the depots have not been properly revealed in the documents. Stating that the documents were bereft of details and vague, the Tribunal rejected the same. On the other hand, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of P.W.2- Venu, the eye witness to the accident and other documents relied upon by the claimants. The Tribunal held that the accident and the death of the deceased Thamizhmani was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and fixed the liability on the appellant transport corporation. The documents furnished before the Tribunal does not establish the appellant's case that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. 6. On the contrary, the F.I.R., death certificate and the evidence of P.W.2 were strongly relied upon by the Tribunal to hold that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus and the liability was therefore fixed on the appellant transport corporation. This court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this issue. 7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- p.m. as against Rs.3,000/- claimed by the claimant. Out of this, 1/3rd amounting to Rs.500/- was deducted and Rs.1000/- was taken as pecuniary loss to the dependents. The Tribunal applying 16 multiplier, determined the loss https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.1000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.1,92,000/-) and Rs.3,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses. Totally, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the multiplier of 16 in the case of death of 35 year old person is on the higher side. He sought for reduction in the quantum of compensation. 9. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. The accident in this case happened on 12.9.1996. The deceased was engaged in weaving and agriculture. He was supporting the wife and three minor children aged 16 years, 14 years and 12 years respectively and also the father. Therefore, the income can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. as claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal on the contrary has taken a meager sum of Rs.1,500/- as income p.m. which is very low. Though the multiplier adopted in this case is on the higher side, the fact that the income of the deceased taken is Rs.1,500/- p.m., the higher multiplier will compensate for the lesser income taken by the Tribunal. 10. 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. 11. Therefore, the marginally higher multiplier will justify the compensation since the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is low. Further, no amount was granted towards loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to the three minor children and the father. Considering all these aspects, the award of Rs.1,95,000/- does not require any further reduction or modification. Since the accident happened in the year 1996 and the award was passed in the year 2003, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is also confirmed. 12. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. 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 entitled to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Maduranthagam. 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.A.Babu, Advocate, SR.64745. CMA No. 1925 of 2003 NTK(CO) RVL 06.01.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/