1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)Nos.511 and 512 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.511 of 2011: The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Coimbatore. .. Appellant / Respondent Vs. 1.Pandurengan 2.Aruna .. Respondents / Petitioners Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 27.10.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai. For Appellant .. Mr.M.Prakash For Respondents .. Mr.S.Deenadayalan CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.512 of 2011: The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Coimbatore. .. Appellant / Respondent Vs. Manimozhi .. Respondent / Petitioner Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 27.10.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai. For Appellant .. Mr.M.Prakash For Respondent .. No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON JUDGMENT The common award dated 27.10.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.41 and 42 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 2. The respondents in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.511 of 2011 as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 and likewise the respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.512 of 2011 as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to award compensation as mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is stated in the petitions that on 12.06.2008 at about 14.20 hours, the deceased Venkatesan and Arun have travelled on a motor cycle. The deceased Arun has driven the same whereas the other deceased Venkatesan has travelled as a pillion rider. At that time, the driver of the respondent has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0947 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, which has been driven by the deceased Arun and due to accident both the rider as well as pillion rider have sustained fatal injuries and subsequently passed away. The deceased Venkatesan has earned Rs.6,000/- per mensum and likewise the deceased Arun has earned Rs.10,000/- per mensum. Under the said circumstances, these petitions have been field for getting compensations as mentioned therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it stated that the driver of the respondent has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0947 from Tiruchirappalli to Coimbatore by way of following traffic rules. The motor cycle had been driven from opposite direction. On seeing the same, the driver of the respondent has given proper horn and despite of due diligence taken by the driver of the respondent, the rider of the motor cycle has hit against the bus and due to that the accident has happened and further the petitioners have claimed excessive amounts by way of compensation and there is no merit in the petitions and the same deserve to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,35,588/- in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 and Rs.4,76,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009. Against the quantum of compensations, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has not touched the factum and manner of accident. He has attacked the common award passed in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 on the following grounds: (a) The deceased in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 is aged about 26 and also a bachelor and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 considering the age of the first petitioner therein has erroneously given 17 multiplier and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the fact that the deceased has died as bachelor, 50% should be deducted towards his personal expenses out of his monthly income, has erroneously awarded compensation of Rs.9,35,588/- and therefore the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 is liable to be modified. (b) In M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009, the deceased mentioned therein has also died as a bachelor at the age of 26. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not given 50% deduction out of his monthly income and therefore the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 is also liable to be modified. 7. In order to controvert the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has sparingly contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased in both the petitions as well as the age of the petitioners have rightly awarded compensation of Rs.9,35,588/- in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 and Rs.4,76,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 and therefore the awards in question need not be modified. 8. Before considering the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the following aspects on the basis of the averments made in the petitions and also on the basis of the available evidence on record. In M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009, it has been stated that the deceased is aged about 26 and he passed away as bachelor. His monthly income has been fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Rs.6,820/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has deducted one-third from his monthly income. 9. Likewise, the deceased mentioned in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 is also aged about 26 and passed away as bachelor and his monthly income has been fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not deducted anything. 10. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/respondent is that since both the deceased are bachelors and since both of them are aged about 26, their age cannot be taken into account for fixing multiplier and only the age of the petitioners should be considered, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. 11. In support of the contention raised on the side of the appellant/respondent, the following decisions have been accited: (a) In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak and others reported in 2007 ACJ 2188, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if claimants are parents of deceased, proper multiplier should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 be fixed on the basis of their age. (b) In Natinal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4921 of 2011), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the petitioners is the sole criteria for fixing multiplier. (c) In Ramesh Singh and another v. Satbir Singh and another reported in 2008(1) TN MAC 157 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that age of parents should be taken into account for fixing multiplier. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has mainly advanced the above limb of argument on the basis of the age of the petitioners given in M.C.O.P.Nos.41 and 42 of 2009. The first petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 is aged about 49 and second petitioner is aged about 20. Likewise the petitioner found in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 is aged about 43. 13. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the decision in P.S.Somanathan & Others v. District Insurance Officers & another reported in 2011(1) TN MAC 306 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out the following aspects for fixing multiplier and also awarding of compensation on the basis of the decision reported in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC): (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has made out the following important steps so as to fix suitable compensation: Step-1 : Ascertaining the multiplicand; Step-2 : Ascertaining the multiplier; and Step-3 : Actual calculation; and ultimately the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the deceased can be taken into consideration for fixing multiplier. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court in categorical terms has held that the age of the deceased can be taken into consideration for fixing multiplier, this Court is of the view to follow the decision in P.S.Somanathan & Others v. District Insurance Officers & another reported in 2011(1) TN MAC 306 (SC). 14. As stated earlier, the first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellant/respondent is that the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 is aged about 26 and died as bachelor and the age of the first petitioner is 49 and the second petitioner is 20 and therefore the age of the petitioners must be taken into account for fixing multiplier. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the deceased can be taken into consideration for fixing multiplier, the first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellant/respondent is sans merit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 15. In M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009, the monthly income of the deceased has been fixed at Rs.6,820/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has made one third deduction. As per the decision reported in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), since the deceased has died as bachelor, 50% deduction must be made towards personal expenses out of his monthly income and in that way it comes to Rs.3,410/- and yearly it comes to Rs.40,920/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given 17 multiplier and the same can be accepted. By way of giving 17 multiplier, it comes to Rs.6,95,640/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not given any amount towards love and affection. Considering the relationship between the deceased and petitioners, Rs.20,000/- can be awarded towards love and affection. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same can be accepted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards transportation. Instead of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- can be awarded and in aggregation the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 are entitled to get Rs.7,25,640/-. 16. In M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009, the deceased is aged about 26 and he died as bachelor. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/- per mensum. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not given any deduction. Considering the fact that the deceased has passed away as bachelor, 50% must be deducted towards his personal expenses and in that way it comes to Rs.1,500/- per mensum and yearly it comes to Rs.18,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 13 multiplier. Since the age of the deceased is 26, 17 multiplier can be adopted and in that way it comes to Rs.3,06,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same can be accepted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not given anything towards love and affection and towards love and affection Rs.10,000/- can be awarded. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and instead of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- can be given and in aggregation the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,26,000/-. Since the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is modified as stated supra, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals can be allowed in part. 17. In fine, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in part without costs and the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.41 and 42 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is modified as follows: (i) The respondents/petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2009 are entitled to get Rs.7,25,640/- by way of compensation. The first petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/- and the second petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,25,460/-. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 (ii) The respondent/petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2009 is entitled to get Rs.3,26,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18. If the appellant/ respondent has deposited any excess amount, the appellant/respondent is entitled to withdraw the same. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Sub Court, Kulithalai. +2cc to Mr.M.Prakash, Advocate, Sr.Nos.26844 & 26845 +1cc to Mr.Deenadayalan, Advocate, Sr.No.26827 COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)Nos.511 and 512 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 09.08.2011 smn SMA/12.9.2011/5C/6P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/