IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.672 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division I, Villupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Kuppu, 2.Gowri, 3.Minor Kamal, 4.Minor Manjula, 5.Minor Partheeban, 6.Minor Divya, 7.Rangammal. (Minor Respondents 3 to 6 are represented by their mother the first respondent Kuppu) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 7 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.1.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.189 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 17.1.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.189 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.1.2003. The deceased Arumugam, aged 40 years, a building construction worker, was travelling in a motorcycle as a pillion driver. The motor cycle was driven by one Mohandoss. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. In that accident, the said Arumugam and Mohandoss died on the spot. The wife aged 38 years, three daughters (age not given), two sons (age not given) and a mother (age not given) filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.7 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Thirunavukkarasu, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of FIR dated 13.1.2003, Ex.A-2 is the certified true copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 14.1.2003, Ex.A-3 is the certified true copy of post-mortem certificate dated 14.1.2003, Ex.A-4 is the copy of judgment in CC No.92 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court II, Tindivanam dated 4.8.2004, Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of family card for the year 2005-2009 and Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of judgment in MCOP No.117 of 2003 on the file of Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam dated 31.3.2005. Mr.Natarajan, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the respondent before the Tribunal was examined as R.W.1. Ex.B-1, the certified true copy of judgment in Crl.A.No.51 of 2004 on the file of Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 6 to 15 of the award in answer to point Nos.1 and 2. Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1; Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report Ex.A-2; copy of judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2003 filed by the legal heirs of the other deceased Mohandoss, the driver of the two wheeler in which the deceased in the present was a pillion rider; and the oral evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the accident happened. The evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B-1, the judgment of the criminal court did not appeal to the Tribunal as the finding of criminal court, does not binding the Tribunal automatically. The Tribunal held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ based on oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability to compensate the claimants on the appellant transport corporation. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation bus is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. The only contention seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 16 to 20 of the award in answer to point No.3. Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-3, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 40 years. In the petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as building construction worker. The wife of the deceased stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing building construction work and agricultural work. P.W.2 stated that the deceased was working under him for a daily wages of Rs.75/-. Considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month (i.e.) Rs.30,000/- per annum). Based on the age of the deceased, 40 years and in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and fixed the loss of income of the deceased at Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,80,000/-). After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the sum of Rs.3,20,000/- as pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased Rs.3,20,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to three daughters, two sons and aged mother Rs. 35,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 10,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs.3,68,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is high. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 13.1.2003. The deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident. (ii) In the petition, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as building construction worker. The wife of the deceased stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing building construction work and agricultural work. P.W.2 stated that the deceased was working under him for a daily wages of Rs.75/-. Considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month (i.e., Rs.30,000/- per annum), which is low and the same is not commensurate with minimum wages or living wages at the time of accident. (iii) The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2003. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month at the time of accident and the compensation determined thereafter. (iv) The sum of Rs.35,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the five children including four minor children and aged mother is very meagre. (v) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased is very low. (vi) The sum of Rs.3,000/- granted towards funeral expenses includes transport expenses, is reasonable and the same is confirmed. (vii) Since the income fixed by the Tribunal is low which in turn affects the compensation and the compensation granted for loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ love and affection to the five children including four minor children and the aged mother and the loss of consortium to the wife is also very low, the marginally higher multiplier "16" adopted in this case will justify the shortfall on other heads. (viii) Considering all the above aspects the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.3,68,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and the award is of the year 2006. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Tindivanam. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.10581 C.M.A.No.672 of 2009 BV(CO) SRA(7/5/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/