IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3460 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Trichy District. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Sulochena, 2.Mohan Kumar, 3.M.Palanisamy. (R3 is unnecessary party, hence given up) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.11.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.493 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV), Coimbatore at Tirupur. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran For respondents : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel for R1 and R2 : R3 given up ----- JUDGMENT State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 24.11.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.493 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV), Coimbatore at Tirupur. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 were served and appears through counsel Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel who was entered appearance even at the time of condone delay petition. He stated that he filed a memo on 7.11.2008 in SR No.5949. 3. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 29.4.1997. The deceased Sridaran Nair, aged 41 years, running a tea stall cum bakery, was travelling on a cycle, when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident the said Sridaran Nair died on the spot. The wife aged 40 years and son aged 26 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. 5. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Manikandan, the eye witness, 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 copy of F.I.R., dated 29.4.1997, Ex.A-2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report, Ex.A-3 is the copy of post-mortem certificate, Es.A-4 is the death certificate dated 23.5.1997, Ex.A-5 is the legal heir certificate dated 29.7.1999 and Ex.P-6 is the first claimant's photo. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 6. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimants is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. 7. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with in paragraph 7 of the award in answer to point No.2. According to the claim petition, claimants claimed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that his deceased husband was earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month, in the absence of specific record to show the actual income. A sum equal to 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of income to the dependents was determined at Rs.1,400/- per month. As per Ex.A-3 post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was stated to be 55 years and therefore, the Tribunal fixed the multiplier of 11. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents at Rs.1,84,800/-. In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents Rs.1,84,800/- 2 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 8,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the claimants Rs. 15,000/- 4 Transport and funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.2,10,300/- 8. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation should be reduced. 9. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) Admittedly, the deceased was owner of a tea stall cum bakery. The accident in this case happened in the year 1997. (ii) The following two 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 1997. In this case, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.2,100/- alone and by adopting 11 multiplier, the compensation has been granted. (iii) The quantum of compensation based on the lower income taken in this case will be compensated by the marginally higher multiplier taken. (iv) The other amounts granted are not seriously disputed and the appellant has not made out a case to reduce the compensation any further. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) This court is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation as well as the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 1997 and the award was passed in the year 2005. 10. 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, respondents 1 and 2/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore at Tirupur 1 cc To Mr.P.Thangavel, Advocate, SR.63109 1 cc To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate, SR.62843 C.M.A.No.3460 of 2008 PUR(CO) SRA(23/01/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/