IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.12.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 2031 of 2003 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Salem division II), Dharmapuri.5. .. Appellant/I respondent Vs. 1. Kalliappan 2. Chinnapappa .. Respondents/petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 27.11.2002 made in MCOP No. 17 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Additional District Judge) Dharmapuri. For Appellant : Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran For Respondents : Mr. M. Selvaraj for M/s. T. Pappaiah Dharmarajan JUDGMENT The Transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 27.11.2002 made in MCOP No. 17 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Additional District Judge) Dharmapuri. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 2.11.1998. The deceased Chinnasamy, aged 29 years, an agriculturist-cum- tuition master, was riding a moped when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus. In that accident, Chinnasamy died. The father aged 50 years, mother aged 46 years filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Ramu, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the death certificate. Ex.A4 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.A5 is the decree certificate of the deceased. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal one Chandran, driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of the transport Corporation to compensate the claimant is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m. After deducting some amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting 18 multiplier, the Tribunal determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 18 -1/3 = Rs.3,60,000/-). In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 3,60,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 6,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.4,11,000/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that in the case of bachelor earning member, the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation should be reduced. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand justified the award stating that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- is very low. The deceased had various source of income and therefore, the total compensation based on 18 multiplier is justified. 8. The deceased in this case was a 29 years old bachelor earning member. The Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar's case (cited supra), in the case of bachelor earning member, held that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proper multiplier that can be taken is 12 on the premise that the possibility of the deceased getting married and the contribution to the dependents getting reduced has to be considered as a prime factor. In this case also, the deceased was a 29 years old bachelor earning member. In such view of the matter, taking note of the date of accident and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar's case, the appropriate multiplier in this case will be "13". Accordingly, the loss of pecuniary benefits is determined in a sum of Rs.Rs.30,000/- x 13 -1/3 = Rs.2,60,000/-). Other amounts granted under conventional heads are confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 3,60,000/- Rs.2,60,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.4,11,000/- Rs.3,11,000/- 9. Since the accident happened in the year 1998 and the award was passed in the year 2002, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. stands confirmed. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,11,000/- from Rs.4,11,000/-. (ii) The award amount will bear interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of deposit. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant stated that entire award amount has been deposited. The mother, second respondent is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,11,000/- with interest less the amount already withdrawn. The father first respondent is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. (iv) Appellant insurance company is entitled to withdraw the balance amount with interest after settling the claimants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( Additional District Judge) Dharmapuri. 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai-104 1 cc to Mr.P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, SR. 71874 1 cc to Mr.T. Pappiah Dharmarajan, SR. 71974 CMA No. 2031/2003 MBS (CO) kk 29/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/