IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.4086 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Salem), No.7, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Chinnaponnu, 2.Minor T.Sudha, 3.Minor T.Prakash, 4.Minor T.Sivagami, 5.Vellachi. (Minor respondents 2 to 4 are represented by guardian and next friend 1st respondent) ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 26.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Salem. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 26.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Salem. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 17.3.2004. The deceased Thoppalan, aged 40 years, was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, the bus turned turtle and many of the passengers suffered injuries. In that accident the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thoppalan died. The wife aged 36 years, two minor daughters aged 12 and 6 years respectively, son aged 12 years and the mother aged 81 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month by doing cattle business. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Manickkam, the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of F.I.R., dated 17.3.2004, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of post-mortem certificate dated 18.3.2004, Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of charge-sheet dated 20.7.2005, Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of rough sketch dated 17.3.2004, Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report and Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of legal heir certificate. On behalf of the appellant, the respondent before the Tribunal, the driver and conductor of the bus was examined as R.Ws.1 and 2. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant. 4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellant transport corporation bus capsized due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and fixed the liability on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants. Such finding is not seriously disputed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal decided the issue in paragraph 10 of the award in answer to point No.2. In the absence of specific evidence, since the deceased was doing cattle business, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.36,000/- per annum, of which 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the dependents was taken as Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier in terms of the second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and granted a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as pecuniary loss to the dependents. 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:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents Rs.3,60,000/- 2 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the two daughters, one son and aged mother Rs. 10,000/- 4 Transport to hospital and Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs.3,83,000/- 6. In appeal, it is contended that the multiplier 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 17.3.2004. The deceased is aged 40 years old and supporting wife, three minor children and aged mother. (ii) As far as income is concerned the following two decisions will have to be taken into consideration:- (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 2004. In this case, the income of the deceased should have been fixed higher than Rs.3,000/- as the as the deceased, in this case, was supporting the family of wife, three minor children and mother. Therefore, the income of the deceased should have been fixed at least at Rs.4,500/- per month if not Rs.5,000/- as claimed. (iii) The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is in terms of the second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per month, which is very low, prejudice is caused to the claimants. However, such prejudice stands reversed by the multiplier adopted in this case. Therefore, the marginally higher multiplier taken by the Tribunal will compensate for the lesser income taken. (iv) Further, meagre amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife in a sum of Rs.10,000/-. For loss of love and affection to the three minor children and the aged mother a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted which is low. (v) Appellant has not made out a case for reduction in quantum of compensation as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 8. 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 ordered and apportioned by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. Principal District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Salem. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.71462 C.M.A.No.4086 of 2008 KA(CO) SRA(21/01/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/