IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3855 of 2008 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2008 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Periyamilaguparai, Trichy-1 ...Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Nallammal 2.Dhanalakshmi 3.Minor Vijayakumar (rep. By her guardian next friend and mother Nallammal) 4.Muthammal 5.Karuppan ...Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 24.12.2007 passed in MCOP.No.750 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Ariyalur. For Appellant : Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi J U D G M E N T The Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 24.12.2007 passed in MCOP.NO.750 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge (Fast track Court), Ariyalur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 01.03.2003. One Gnanavelmurugal was riding his vehicle with his friend Nallathambi. The said two wheeler was hit by a transport Corporation bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in that accident, both the Gnanavelmurugan and the Nallathambi suffered grievous injuries and died. On the death of Nallathambi, his wife aged about 37 years, daughter aged 18 years, minor son aged about 16 years, father age not known and mother aged about 55 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.7 lakhs stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim Marimuthammal was examined as PW2 in respect of the first claim. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Nallathambi. PW3 is one Senthil, the eye witness and he spoke about the accident. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked, of which EXs.A1 to A6 are relevant for this case. EX.A1 is the First Information Report, Ex.A2 is the Post-mortem certificate of Nallathambi, Ex.A3 is the driving licence of the deceased (copy), Ex.A4 is the Service Certificate, Ex.A5 is the Lorry RC book of the deceased Nallathambi (copy) Ex.A6 is the Post-mortem certificate. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal and proof affidavit of one Periyasamy RW1 is marked on behalf of the appellant/respondent. 4. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as responsible for the accident and the death and the liability fixed on the appellant Transport Corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 6. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunal in Point No.3. As per the post-mortem certificate Ex.A2, the age of the deceased Nallathambi was taken as 42 years. According to the claimants, the deceased was a driver cum owner of lorry and engaged in a private Company and his monthly income was Rs.10,000/-. Except the driving licence and RC book of lorry, no proof with regard to the nature of employment with the private company was filed to support the income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 42 years and fixed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. Out of this amount, 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and hence the contribution was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and the annual contribution was taken as Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal adopted the Multiplier at 15 and fixed a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.3000 x 12 x https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15) as compensation towards pecuniary loss. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation. Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 5,40,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 4 Conveyance Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 5,49,000/- The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,49,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that considering the age of the deceased who was 42 years as per Postmortem certificate and 39 years as per the claim, the Multiplier has to be reduced and compensation will also have to be considerably reduced. 8.This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons: The deceased in this case Nallathambi is aged between 39 years to 42 years and a lorry owner cum driver by occupation and the said fact is not in dispute. Though a higher amount is claimed as income, no proof of actual income earned is furnished. In any event, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and that is justified in view of the Apex Court decisions 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). 9.The choice of Multiplier has been emphazised by the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and others reported in (1194) 1 ACC 346 (SC) = AIR 1994 SC 1631. Paragraph 11 of the said decision is set out here under: "11. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and awarded the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say, 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years - virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 - and even if one-third or one- fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34 . This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this Court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some Judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take, for instance, a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs.10,000/-. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent, then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs.10,000/- would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e. the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc., Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up 10. In the instant case, considering the lump sum payment that will be made and also considering the age of the daughter, son who may not be dependents after a period of time, the multiplier needs to be reduced. In this case, the wife was not granted any amount for loss of consortium and the two children, father and mother are granted a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection on the death of Nallathambi. Even the amount granted for funeral expenses is very meagre . On these heads, the claimants will be entitled to just and reasonable compensation and it cannot be a token compensation or pittance . Even if the multiplier is reduced to 14, the total pecuniary loss will be Rs.5,04,000/-. The excess amount of Rs.45,000/- can be adjusted towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to two children and parents as well as towards funeral expenses which is also very meagre. Therefore,the quantum of compensation does not require any further reduction or modification, as also the interest granted at 7.5% p.a., as the accident happened in this case in the year 2003 and award passed in 2007. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order to costs. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the entire amount and the same is allowed and on such deposit, The claimants will be entitled to withdraw the amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ VJY Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge Fast Track Court), Ariyalur + 1 c.c. to Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate. S.R.No.69586. Judgment in C.M.A.No.3855 of 2008 KA (CO) GSK 09.02.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/