IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.9.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.2716 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rangapuram, Vellore. .. Appellant/ respondent Vs. 1. Vijaya 2. Minor Premkumar 3. Minor Vignesh 4. Elumalai 5. Baby Ammal (R2 and R3 minors rep by mother and natural guardian Vijaya) ..Respondents/petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 18.12.2006 in MACTOP No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. Dist. & Sessions Court-FTC)Vellore. For Appellant : Mr. N. Anand For Respondents : Mr. V.K. Rajagopalan JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 18.12.2006 in MACTOP No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District and Sessions Court-FTC)Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The accident in this case happened on 7.11.2004. The deceased Vijayakumar, aged 41 years, was claimed to be running a travel agency, provision stores, finance business, and also M/s. Vijaya metal fabrication. His income is claimed to be Rs.50,000/- p.m. The deceased was riding a two wheeler when he was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. In that accident, the said Vijayakumar died. The wife aged 36 years, two minor sons aged 11 years and 8 years respectively, father aged 60 years and mother aged 59 years have filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 4. In support of the claim petition, one Sakunthala, wife of the deceased in MCOP No. 34 of 2006 was examined as P.W.1. One Vijaya, wife of the deceased in the present case was examined as P.W.2. One Sudhakar, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.3. One Ravikumar, was examined as P.W.4 to support the plea with regard to the income of the deceased. Documents Exs. A1 to A19 were marked. The relevant documents relating to the claimants in the present case are Exs.A7 to A18. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. One Natarajan was examined as R.W.2. Documents Exs.R1 – photo with negatives and Ex.R2 – travelling ticket were marked. 5. The only contention in this case as stated earlier is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal decided the issue with regard to the compensation in paragraph 9 of the award relating to MCOP No. 36 of 2006. In support of the income of the deceased Ex.A7, dated 2.3.1984 was filed to show that the deceased was a partner in a finance company. Ex.A8 is the Bank Pass Book. Ex.A11 relates to a quotation to show that the deceased was engaged in a travel business. Ex.A12 is the tax receipt to show the payment for entry of vehicle to other state. Ex.A13 is the bank pass book and challan to show the income from the provision stores run by the deceased and his wife. Ex.A14 is the bills relating to Chelliamman Travels said to be owned by the deceased. Ex.A15 is the loan receipt in respect of the vehicle owned by the deceased. Ex.A16 is the pass book relating to Vijaya Metal works. Ex.A17 is the telephone bills. Based on these documents, the income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.50,000/- p.a. The Tribunal however fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. and the annual income at Rs.60,000/- of which, 1/3rd was deducted and the contribution to the family was fixed as Rs.40,000/- p.a. The Tribunal, by adopting 15 multiplier determined the loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. 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 earning Rs.6,00,000/- 2 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs.6,09,000/- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has taken higher income and higher multiplier to fix the compensation and therefore, the same has to be reduced. He relied upon the decision of the Apex 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) 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per second schedule, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is correct. In any event, meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the minor children and therefore, reasonable compensation has to be given on these heads. He justified the award. 8. In 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC) the Supreme Court held thus in paragraph 13 to 15 as follows:- "13. In G.M.Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631, it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequently be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22, appears to be appropriate. In fact in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22, after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. (See:New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Charlie and Another, 2005(10) SCC 720. (emphasis supplied) 14. The above position was highlighted in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors., 2006(6) SCC 249; Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v. K.I. Bindu, 2005(8) SCC 473; T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. - v. S.Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236; Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Lasman Iyer, 2003(8)SCC 731; State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2003(7) SCC 484; The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., 2007(2) SCALE 227; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendar & Ors. JT 2006(10) SC 234. 15. Considering the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier would be 12. The income fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction for personal expenses do not warrant any interference. Worked out on that basis, the entitlement of the loss of income is Rs.5,76,000/-. The other expenses awarded remain unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the claimants is fixed at Rs.6,00,000/-. It would be appropriate to fix the rate of interest at 7.5% instead of 9% as done by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court." 9. In view of the decision cited above and keeping the probables of life the multiplier in this case can be taken as 13 as the deceased was 41 years. The income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence as set out above is reasonable. There is no appeal by the claimants. Therefore, the total pecuniary loss will be Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 13 = Rs.5,20,000/-). 10. The wife is entitled to reasonable amount towards loss of consortium and the parents and minor children are entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection which is very meager and has to be suitably modified to grant just compensation. The wife will be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consortium, two minor children are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each and the parents will be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- each towards loss of love and affection. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.5,20,000 /- 2 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the two minor sons Rs.10,000/- each (Rs.10,000/- x 2=Rs.20,000/-)and to the parents Rs.7,500/- each (Rs.7,500/- x 2 =Rs.15,000/-) Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 35,000/- 5 Loss of consortium to the wife -- - Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.6,09,000/- Rs.5,75,000 /- Since the accident happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2006, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. stands confirmed. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5,75,000/- from Rs.6,09,000/-. (ii) The award amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) Out of the award amount of Rs.5,75,000/-, the wife is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest and parents/ father and mother of the deceased are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with interest. (iv) The minor two sons of the deceased, viz., respondent Nos.2 & 3/ claimant Nos.2 & 3, are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- each together with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) The share of the minors respondents 2 & 3/ claimants 2 & 3 shall be invested in any nationalised bank proximate to the place of the residence of the first respondent/first claimant for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minors attain majority. The mother of the minors/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest in respect of the share of the minors once in three months directly from the bank and for the said purpose the first respondent/first claimant shall open a savings bank account on the same branch and the interest amount shall be transferred to the account to be maintained by the mother. (vi) The nationalised bank to which the amount will be deposited, shall intimate to the first respondent/first claimant of such deposit and confirm the same to the Tribunal that the first claimant has been duly informed. The Tribunal to inform the bank accordingly. (vii) Since the deposit is in the case of minors, the Tribunal is directed to send a report containing the details of the deposit to the High Court on such deposit. (viii) There will be no order as to cost. (ix) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge-FTC) Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Section Officer Judicial Section High Court, Madras 1 cc to Mr.N. Anand, Advocate, SR. 55730 1 cc to Mr.V.K. Rajagopalan, Advocate, Sr. 55534 CMA No. 2716 of 2008 BV(CO) kk 10/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/