IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.2802 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport CorporationLtd., Salem Divison I,Salem. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. Smt,.Valarmathi 2. Punitha (Minor) 3. Sathishkumar (Minor) (Minors rep. By next friend and guardian mother Valarmathi) 4. V.Shanmugam .. Respondents/Petitioner . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 03.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P No. 418 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.II ), Salem. . . . For Appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi For respondents : Mr.M.R.Thangavel . . . J U D G M E N T The State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 03.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P No. 418 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.II ), Salem. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 02.01.2004. The deceased Mohan, aged about 45 years, a coolie in a rice Mill was standing on the side of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Salem-Sankagiri main road in order to take his wife to the hospital for treatment, when the bus, belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and he suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Salem. However, he was declared brought dead. The wife aged about 33 years, minor daughter 15 years, minor son aged 13 years and father of the deceased aged 75 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month. He was working as a daily wage earner in Rangasamy Rice Mill at Salem District. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Devarajan, son of the owner of the rice Mill was examined as P.W.2. Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P.3 is Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex.P.4 is the Charge Sheet. Ex.P.5 is the Death Certificate. On the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal, the conductor and driver of the bus was examined as R.Ws. 1 and 2. But no documentary evidence was let in before the Tribunal. 4. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased, who witenssed the accident and also taking note of the documents,namely, First Information Report, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and the charge sheet filed against the driver of the appellant Transport bus, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport corporation bus. The evidence of the conductor and driver of the bus were disbelieved by the Tribunal holding that they have not given the police complaint immediately after the accident and they have failed to produce the relevant documents relating to the enquiry made by the Department on the nature of accident, before the appropriate Court proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of the said Mohan was due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport corporation bus. 5. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that there is no material to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal, on negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant Corporation to compensate the claimants is confirmed. 6. The only contention seriously raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. In this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case, the Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.1, the wife, and P.W.2, the employer of the deceased, who is the son of the owner of the Rice Mill, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs4,500/- per month. For determining this amount, the evidence of P.W.2 was found to be acceptable.P.W.2 stated that the daily wages of the deceased was Rs.150/- per day as it is a specialised job of curing the boiled rice . From this amount, 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month and the annual contribution was fixed at Rs.36,000/- The Tribunal adopted multiplier of 13 based on Schedule II to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and fixed the total pecuniary loss to the dependants as Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs. 36,000 X 13= Rs. 4,68,000). The Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to four claimants. In all the Tribunal granted the amounts as follows with 7.5 % interest. Sl.N 0. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 For Pecuniary loss Rs. 4,68,000/- 2 For loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- 3. For Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs 4,90,000/- 7. In appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- granted towards pecuniary loss is on the higher side and therefore, sought for reduction in the quantum of compensation. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal for the following reasons: The accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the deceased was working as a coolie in the Rice Mill and engaged in curing of paddy for rice production. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the daily income of the deceased was Rs.150/- and he has been working there for more than 5 years. Taking note of this fact and also the Division Bench decision of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) and the Apex Court's decision in State of Haryana and another Vs Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, the income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal adopted multiplier as per Schedule II to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if the multiplier is found to be marginally higher as stated by the counsel for the appellant, the fact that no amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and meagre amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection for two children and the father of the deceased, and since no amount has been granted for loss of Estate, the total compensation can be justified. The total compensation in a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- does not require further reduction or modification. Further , the interest granted at 7.5% in the accident which happened in the year 2004 and the award passed n the year 2008 is marginally lower. The marginally higher compensation on one or other head will compensate for any short fall. 9. In the result, finding no merits, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. PAL Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (FTC.No.II) Salem. 2. The Section Officer, V. R. Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, Advocate SR No. 70164 + 1 cc to Mrs. B. Vijaya lakshmi, Advocate SR No. 70314 CMA No. 2802 of 2008 PUR(CO) SR/23.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/