IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3258 of 2008 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Division-I Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. ...Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Amutha, 2.Minor Arputhakumar, 3.Minor Revathy alias Munju, 4.Minor Muthukumar, 5.Thirupurasundari, (Minor Respondents 2 to 4 are represented by their mother and next friend ...Respondents/ the 1st respondent) Petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 8.3.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I), Chengalpattu. For Appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran JUDGMENT The Metropolitan Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 8.3.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I), Chengalpattu. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 1.4.2002 on the G.S.T. Road, Tambaram. The deceased Ekambaram, said to be aged 46 years, a self employed Carpenter was standing on the side of the road. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit him. In that accident, he suffered serious injuries. He was taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to Government Hospital, Tambaram, where he died. The wife aged 32 years, two minor sons aged 17 and 11 years respectively, one minor daughter aged 14 years, father aged 67 years and the mother aged 60 years filed a claim for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Meganathan, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. One Kumar, was examined as P.W.3. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimants:- Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of F.I.R., dated 1.4.2002, Ex.P-2 is the post-mortem certificate dated 2.4.2002, Ex.P-3 is the legal heir certificate dated 28.5.2002 and Ex.P-4 is the salary certificate issued to the deceased. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was produced on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal decided the issue with regard to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus in paragraph 6 of the award in answer to point No.1. P.W.2 is the eye witness to the accident. Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus was disbelieved by the Tribunal and in the absence of any other material to support the plea with regard to negligence on the part of the deceased, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus is confirmed. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph No.8 of the award in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased was taken as 46 years based on Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate. P.W.3 was examined to say that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day by doing carpenter work. However, this was not accepted by the Tribunal as the oral and documentary evidence, according to the Tribunal was created for the purpose of the claim. The Tribunal, however, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal followed unit method and fixed the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.1,555.55 per month. The Tribunal based on the age of the deceased, adopted 13 multiplier and determined the total pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,42,665.80 (Rs.1,555.55 x 12 x 13 = Rs.2,42,665.80). The Tribunal also granted compensation towards conventional heads. In all the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 9%:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.2,42,665.80 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs.2,59,665.80 rounded of to Rs.2,59,666.00 6. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation, particularly, he pleaded that lesser multiplier should have been taken as the deceased in the case was aged about 46 years and consequently, the compensation should be reduced. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal 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 a carpenter, aged 46 years supporting a family consisting of wife three minor children and aged parents. (ii) 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, who is a carpenter and also considering the accident which is of the year 2002, the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month though the claim was Rs.6,000/- per month is very low. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) In this case three minor children and aged parents were not granted any amount towards loss of love and affection on the death of the deceased. (iv) Even if the multiplier is marginally higher, the fact that the income of the deceased taken is marginally very low and the fact that no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection, will compensate the same. (v) This court finds no good reason to interfere with the award by way of reduction as also the interest granted at 9% as in this case no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to three children and aged parents. This will justify the marginally higher interest of 9%. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount, if not already deposit. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition if any is closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chengalpattu. 2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 c.c. to Mr. p. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate. S.R.No.60351. Judgment in C.M.A.No.3258 of 2008 KA (CO) GSK 02.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/