IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.9.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3016 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 ............ The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem. .. Appellant/ Respondent Vs. 1. Rangammal 2. Nagarajan 3. Palanisamy 4. Kannammal 5. Thangamani 6. Chinnammal 7. Palaniammal .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 04.04.2006 in MCOP No.25 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal. For Appellant : Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran For Respondent : Mr. M.A.P . Thangavel -------- JUDGMENT The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 04.04.2006 in MCOP No.25 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The accident in this case happened on 3.9.1995. The deceased Duraisamy @ Masala Naicker, aged about 50 years, working as an agriculturist, was riding a TVS 50 when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in that accident, he died on the spot. The wife aged 48 years and two sons aged 30 years and 29 years respectively and two married daughters are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 3. In support of the claim petition, the second son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. Exs. A1 to A15 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the death certificate. Ex.A4 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.A5 to A15 are the sale deeds. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. This issue was decided in paragraph 7 in answer to point No.3. The age of the deceased was fixed as 50 years based on post mortem certificate Ex.P2. In the absence of specific material, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.15,000/- p.a. of which 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.10,000/- p.a. By applying 13 multiplier, the pecuniary loss was determined in a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 13 = Rs.1,30,000/-). In all, the following amounts were granted as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.1,30,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 7 Rs. 10,000/- 5 Loss of amenities Rs. 8,000/- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 7 Damage to vehicle Rs. 5,000/- 8 Loss of future income for 20 years Rs. 20,000/- 9 Loss of other sources of income in future Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,00,000/- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation for pecuniary loss, loss consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, transport expenses and damage to vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation granted on all other heads except as above are totally irrelevant, unjustified and arbitrary. He therefore sought for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants contended that meager amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the children. The income of the deceased, who managed the large family of two sons and four daughters, as determined by the Tribunal is very low. He however stated that unfortunately the claimants failed to file an appeal for enhancement of compensation. He also pleaded for suitable modification of the award on other heads in dispute and prayed for just compensation. 8. The fact that the deceased was owning extensive lands is supported by documents viz., Exs.A5 to A15. He was an agriculturist by profession. In view of the Apex Court decision in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, the income of the deceased should have been fixed on the higher side. However, the Tribunal had taken the notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. The claimants failed to file an appeal for enhancement of compensation. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sum of Rs.8,000/- granted for loss of amenities, Rs.20,000/- for loss of future income and further sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of other sources of income is wholly unjustified and unreasonable and the same cannot be sustained when adequate compensation is granted for loss of pecuniary benefits consequent to the death. This contention has to be accepted as some of the heads on which the compensation is granted cannot be justified and is also irrelevant. The claimants however are entitled to reasonable compensation for loss of consortium, loss https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of love and affection to the other claimants on the death of the deceased father and for loss of estate. Considering all these aspects, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.1,30,000/- Rs.1,30,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 7 Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 30,000/- 5 Loss of amenities Rs. 8,000/- --- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 2,000/- 7 Damage to vehicle Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 8 Loss of future income for 20 years Rs. 20,000/- --- 9 Loss of other sources of income in future Rs. 10,000/- --- 10 Loss of estate --- Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,91,000/- Since the accident happened in the year 1999 and the award passed in the year 2006, the interest granted at 7.5% 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.1,91,000/- from Rs.2,00,000/-. (ii) The learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. (iii) Out of the award amount of Rs.1,91,000/-, the first claimant is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.71,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs. Claimants 2 to 7 are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- each with proportionate interest. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Ra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal. + 1 cc to Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, SR No.55220 + 1 cc to Mr. Ma. P. Thangavel, Advocate, SR No.55733 CMA No. 3016 of 2008 CK(CO) SR/29.10.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/