IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.595 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Metro Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.K.Ramanathan, 2.R.Chitra. ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 10.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3911 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. For appellant : Mr.Kasiviswanathan ----- JUDGMENT The Metro Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 10.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3911 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 16.6.2002. The deceased minor K.R.Kamali, a 6 years old girl student, was travelling in the TVS 50 along with her uncle and mother. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ negligent manner hit the two wheeler and the bus ran over the head of the said minor Kamali. In that accident, the said Kamali died. The father aged 40 years and the mother aged 27 filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. 3. The claim was adjudicated along with connected matter. In support of the claim on hand, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Senthilkumar, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. One Dr.Saichandran was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. 4. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in this case happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. There is no material on behalf of the appellant transport corporation to controvert the same. Hence, the finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the death and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants cannot/is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal relying on the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited, Allahabad – vs. - Raj Bahadur and another reported in 2003(3)TAC 409 fixed the income notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum and based on the age of the deceased, adopting multiplier 15 granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 15 = Rs.2,25,000/-) as compensation to the parents of the deceased minor. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.N o. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.2,25,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of companionship Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs.2,52,000/- 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation, stating that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of death of a 6 years old student is high resulting in excess compensation. He also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contended that the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of companionship to the parents of the deceased is not correct. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award on the above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 16.6.2002. (ii) The deceased was 6 years old girl student at that time and studying 1st standard at DAV School, Gopalapuram, a prestigious school in the City. (iii) The Apex Court in Manju Devi and another – vs. - Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609 (SC), granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation on the death of the 12 years old student. In the Apex Court's decision, the accident happened in the year 1999. In this case, the accident happened on 16.6.2002. Hence the quantum of compensation granted is justified. (iv) The parents losing their child at a tender age is a permanent scar in their life and the grief will linger till their life time. In a claim for compensation, in the case of death, the claimants are granted compensation under conventional heads, like loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and miscellaneous expenses and loss of estate in the case of death of an earning member. The entitlement of the claimants/parents for compensation on conventional heads cannot be disputed. (v) The claimants in this case are father and mother claiming compensation on the death of their daughter. The child was given education in a good school. The parents will expect her to do well in life and their expectation of the bright prospects of their daughter has been shattered due to her untimely death and hence they have to be compensated for loss of love and affection consequent to the death of their child. This will be in addition to compensation on other heads. But, in this case no amount was granted towards loss of love and affection, instead the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of companionship. Hence, the said amount is adjusted towards loss of love and affection to both parents. (vi) The sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards funeral expenses will include transport as well. 8. Considering the above aspects, the total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- is justified as also the interest granted at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 9. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To The Registrar, Small Causes Court), (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.V.Kasiviswanathan, Advocate Sr 8296 MBS(CO) km/9.4. C.M.A.No.595 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/