IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.146 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Periya Milagu Parai Trichy ..Appellant/Ist Respondent Vs. 1.Dhanalakshmi 2.Murugeswari 3.Raja ..Respondents/Claimants Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge) Perambalur. For Appellant : Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Kamadevan For R3 : Not Ready JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has come forward with this Appeal as against the grant of an award of Rs.5,68,000/- in respect of death of a person aged about 53 years. The claimants are wife and two children. The Transport Corporation has admitted the accident. But, as far as the liability is concerned, they would contend that as a passenger, he has not examined any independent evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the bus driver. As far as the quantum is concerned, the lower Court has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- when there is no evidence. Further, the multiplier 11 has been wrongly adopted, considering the age of the wife. Under those circumstances, the appellant preferred this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 mainly would contend that there is no question of shifting the liability of negligence by the Transport Corporation. The deceased was a passenger in the bus and the accident is admitted. Apart from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner, some other passengers also sustained injury. The driver of the vehicle dashed the vehicle against a Tipper lorry in the front, the driver of the bus has been charge sheeted and he has paid a fine. Under those circumstances, it is not open to the Transport Corporation to question the negligence and as a third party, the claimants need not examine any one when the facts speaks for themselves. As far as the quantum is concerned, he would only contend that the deceased was doing real estate business. In support of the same, P.W.2 was examined. Therefore, the income arrived by the Court below is fair and reasonable. 3. Heard both sides. 4. By consent, the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. The accident is admitted and the liability is also admitted. But, the appellant would only question that the negligence has not been proved by the claimants. The Transport Corporation only contend that the deceased was a passenger in the bus, but, the claimants have not chosen to examine any independent evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the Transport Corporation. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the Transport Corporation Driver has been charge sheeted and he has also paid the fine amount. The deceased was after all a passenger travelling in the State Government Transport Corporation Bus and therefore, the claimants cannot be expected to examine anyone else. Whereas in this case, the Driver of the bus has been examined and he has been cross examined by the appellant himself stating that he was only responsible. Having admitted and paid the fine it is not open to the Transport Corporation to contend that the Court below is not correct in denying the negligence. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly fixed the liability only on the part of the Driver of the Transport Corporation bus. 7. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that without any records in respect of the income of the deceased, the lower Court has taken Rs.6,000/- as income per month accepting the evidence of P.W.2, who alleges that he has entered into an agreement for the purchase of property, but, that by itself is not sufficient to show what was the income of the deceased. Even P.W.1 in her evidence has not very specifically pleaded about income or no document or income tax return has been produced. Under those circumstances, the Court below is not correct in fixing the monthly income of the deceased, whereas even as per the evidence and cross examination, up to Rs.4,500/- would be the income of the deceased. If, Rs.4,500/- is fixed as basis for income and 1/3rd deduction is given towards personal expenses Rs.3,000/- will be the actual contribution to the family. As far as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ multiplier is concerned, the age of the deceased is 53 years and age of the wife is 45 years. The lower Court has awarded compensation on the basis of the age of deceased at 53 years by taking multiplier 11, which is correct. When the multiplier 11 has to be adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 11) as against Rs.5,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. So far the the consortium is concerned, the lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and they are very reasonable, hence, they are confirmed. Since the interest to be granted as per the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.7824/2011, dated 23.09.2011, the interest is reduced to 6%. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed reducing compensation from 5,68,000/- to 4,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. As per the interim order of stay granted by this Court, the entire amount has been deposited. Hence, the Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount along with accrued interest. The claimants are also permitted to withdraw the compensation amount, determined in this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar smn To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge) Perambalur 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.69420 1 cc To Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate, SR.69272 C.M.A.No.146 of 2010 TRM(CO) RH (11.1.12) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/