IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.03.2009 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN CMA.No. 352 of 2003 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Salem Divn. II) Ltd formerly known as Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri 5 ...Appellant/Respondent -vs- 1. M.Manimekala 2. M. Manivel 3. M. Sivashanmugam 4. M. Prasad Respondents 3 and 4 are declared as majors and the first respondent is discharged from their guardianship of the respondents 3 and 4 vide order dated 5.12.2005 in CMP.NO. 19208 of 2005 ...Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the decree and judgment made in MCOP.No. 116 of 1996 dated 28.6.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Dharmapuri. For Appellants : Mr.T. Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr. Selvam for Mr.P.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J) The State Transport Corporation is the appellant. One Mathiayan who was a Head master of the Government Panchayat Union Elementary School died in the accident on 17.11.95 due to the negligent driving of the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. His wife and three children made a claim of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,07,328/-. As against the same, the present appeal has been filed by the State Transport Corporation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard both the counsel. 3. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eyewitness that the deceased Mathiayan was going on the mud road on his motor cycle on the left side of the road. The State Transport Corporation bus came and hit him. He was admitted in the Dharmapuri Government Hospital. But, he succumbed to injuries on the same night. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that it was only the driver of the Transport Corporation who was responsible for the accident. 4. The Tribunal, therefore, on the basis of Ex.P1 - FIR, evidence of P.W.2, an eyewitness and R.W.1, the driver, came to the conclusion that the driver of the State Transport Corporation alone is negligent. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the plea against the finding of negligence. We confirm the finding regarding the negligence. 5. Next we come to the quantum. Ex.P11 is the service register. From this, it is seen that the deceased was 46 years old at the time of the accident. Ex.P7 is the salary certificate which shows that he was earning a sum of Rs.6032/- per month. Before the Tribunal, Junior Assistant of the Pennagaram Elementary Education office was examined and he had also given evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Though there was an evidence to show that there would have been increment to his salary, the Tribunal took Rs.6032/- as basic salary and adopted the multiplier of 13 and arrived at a sum of Rs.6,27,328/-. Under the head of loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded, for loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was awarded in aggregate, for loss of earning capacity, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded for mental agony to the survivors, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for transport expenses and a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- was awarded for loss of future earning. In total, a sum of Rs.11,07,328/- was awarded. 6. The deceased was 46 years old and he had 12 more years of service. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. JASHUBEN AND OTHERS – 2008 (3) LW 40, wherein the deceased was working in Oil and Natural Gas Commission, while holding that it is impermissible in law to take into consideration the effect of revision in scale of pay, held that the basic pay could be multiplied by 2 and after adding dearness allowance etc., arrived at the annual income and then by adopting the proper multiplier, the Court should fix the contribution of the deceased. We propose to adopt the same method. Therefore, if a sum of Rs.6032/- is multiplied by 2, we get a sum of Rs.12,064/-. This is rounded off to Rs.12,000/- which we fix as the income of the deceased. If we deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contribution to the family would be Rs.8000/-. The annual contribution would then be Rs.96,000/-. 7. Now we have to fix the multiplier. The Supreme Court in U.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SHANTHI DEVI & ORS. - 2009 (2) Scale 168, for a person who was 45 years old at the time of the accident, adopted multiplier of 11. We propose to follow the same. The deceased herein was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, if we adopt the multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,56,000/- (96,000 x 11). There were three children who lost their father. Therefore, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded in the place of sum of Rs.75,000/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection. The wife was only 38 years old when she lost her husband and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of consortium and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal further awarded sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for transport expenses, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. If we add all these, we get an aggregate sum of Rs.11,26,000/-. But the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,07,328/-, which is approximately the same amount as per our calculation. Therefore, the appeal for reduction in grant of award must be dismissed. 8. We have ourselves decided the question as to what would be just and reasonable award on the basis of the materials on record and the decided cases of the Supreme Court. The claimants' family lost their bread winner under tragic circumstances on 17.11.1995, i.e 13 years ago. We do not think, we should prolong their agony by adjourning the matter for every hearing. We think even that would amount to deprivation of access to justice. 9. In view of our above finding on negligence and calculation of quantum, the CMA is dismissed. Therefore, all the respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar bg https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Dharmapuri. 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.T.Pappaiah Dharmarajan, Advocate, SR.7287. 1 cc To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, SR.7293. CMA.No. 352 of 2003 KA(CO) RVL 25.03.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/