IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.625 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 12. Ramakrishna Main Road, Salem-7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.D.Paripuranam, 2.D.Megalai, 3.D.Suvitha, 4.Minor D.Sangeetha, 5.Puvayee alias Kavitha, 6.Minor Selvakumar, 7.Minor Sathasivam. (Minor 4th respondent is represented by next friend and mother D.Paripuranam) (Minor respondents 6 and 7 are represented by next friend and mother D.Puvayee alias Kavitha). ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.850 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Salem. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 17.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.850 of 2007 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 20.3.2007. The deceased T.Duraisamy, aged 49 years, an agriculturist, weaver and a businessman in cotton and milk vending, was travelling in TVS Champ on Namakkal to Salem road. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the two wheeler on the backside. In that accident, the said Duraisamy suffered serious injuries. He died in the hospital on 25.3.2007. The first wife aged 42 years and three daughters aged 21, 19 and 15 years born through the first wife; the second wife aged 29 years and two sons aged 6 and 4 years through second wife filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- stating that the deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the first wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Vasudevan, the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked on behalf of the claimants, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the FIR dated 20.3.2007, Ex.A-2 is the Post-mortem certificate dated 25.3.2007, Ex.A-3 is the altered FIR dated 25.3.2007, Ex.A-4 is the medical bill for Rs.23,000/- dated 24.3.2007, Ex.A-5 is the proof for doing cotton business, Ex.A-6 is the membership card for TCMS, Ex.A-7 is the membership card for Salem CMS, Ex.A-8 is the certificate from Hand loom Weavers Society, Ex.A-9 is the account book for milk supply, Ex.A-10 is the legal heir certificate, Ex.A-11 is the photocopy of ration card and Ex.A-12 is the certificate for Social Welfare Membership. One Vasudevan, an officer of the appellant transport corporation was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. With regard to negligence, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the award in answer to point No.1. Based on the F.I.R. Ex.A-1 and the oral evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident and R.W.1, the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants. There is no material to controvert such finding of the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the appellant transport corporation. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation cannot be and is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, which is the only serious issue canvassed, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the award in answer to point No.2. Based on the post-mortem certificate Ex.A-2, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 49 years. Considering the documents Exs.A-5 to A-9, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased was an agriculturist, weaver and a businessman in cotton and milk vending and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month (i.e.) Rs.39,600/- per annum. Based on the age of the deceased at 49 years, the Tribunal adopted 11 multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.4,35,600/- (Rs.39,600/- x 11 = Rs.4,35,600/-) towards loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents 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.4,35,600/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 4,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the five children on the death of their father Rs. 20,000/- 4 Loss of consortium to the two wives on the death of their husband Rs. 15,000/- 5 Loss of estate Rs. 2,000/- 6 Medical expenses as per Ex.A-4 Rs. 23,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Total Rs.4,99,600/- rounded off to Rs.5,00,000/- 6. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.5,000/- is excessive. She also contended that the multiplier 11 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is to be reduced. 7. While perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2007. The deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident. (ii) Considering the documents Exs.A-5 to A-9, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased was an agriculturist, weaver and a businessman in cotton and milk vending. It is claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.14,000/-. The Tribunal, however, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month alone, which is very meagre. However, it can be justified in view of the oral and documentary evidence let in and is not refuted as unacceptable. (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 2007. Considering the same, the income https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the deceased, can be fixed atleast as Rs.6,000/- per month as he was an agriculturist, weaver and a businessman in cotton and milk vending for which necessary documents are filed. (iv) The sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the five children is very very meagre. (v) Even if the multiplier of "11" adopted in this case is marginally higher, it can be adjusted towards lesser income fixed by the Tribunal and the compensation granted towards loss of love and affection to the five children is very low. (vi) The compensation granted under other heads are reasonable and the same is confirmed. (vii) Considering the above aspects the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2007 and the award is of the year 2008. 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. ts Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Principal District Judge), (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Salem. CK(CO) SR/2.4.2009 Judgment in C.M.A.No.625 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/