IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3287 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division No.II) Ltd., Erode-1. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.S.Kalamani, 2.Minor Shalini, 3.Palaniammal, 4.Palanisamy. (Minor second respondent is represented by her next friend, mother and guardian S.Kalamani). ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.3.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.226 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Court), Salem. For appellant : Mr.A.Babu For respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan ----- JUDGMENT Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 24.3.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.226 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Court), Salem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Notice of motion was ordered on 22.11.2006. On that date unconditional interim stay was granted. Respondents have been served and they appeared through counsel. In the petition filed by the respondents/claimants to vacate the unconditional stay, this Court while making the interim stay absolute, directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount within eight weeks, failing which the order of stay shall stand vacated. 3. This matter came up before this Court for reporting compliance. Counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents pleaded that the appeal itself may be disposed of on merits. 4. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 5.10.2004. The deceased P.Sekar said to be 30 years, a driver and agriculturist, was driving a three wheeler, when it was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, he suffered injuries and died. The wife aged 25 years, minor daughter aged 6 years, mother aged 52 years and father aged 55 years, claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.7 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 5. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Murugesan, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. One Tmt.Sampoornam, the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were filed, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R. Dated 5.10.2004, Ex.A-2 is the copy of post-mortem certificate, dated 6.10.2004, Ex.A-3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 7.10.2004 (TN 33 N 1524), Ex.A-4 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 8.10.2004 (TN 34 B 7933), Ex.A-5 is the copy of charge-sheet dated 30.10.2004, Ex.A-6 is the driving licence of the deceased dated 28.1.2002, Ex.A-7 is the legal heir certificate, Ex.A-8 is the salary certificate of the deceased dated 3.8.2004 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.A-9 are the vouchers for payment of salary to the deceased, dated 3.8.2004 and 2.9.2005. The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked by the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. 6. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the appellant's counsel and the same is confirmed. 7. As far as the compensation is concerned, reliance was placed on Ex.A-8 salary certificate and Ex.A-9 vouchers for payment of salary to the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the said documents and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.600/- towards personal expenses of the deceased. The loss of contribution to the family of the deceased was fixed at Rs.1,900/- per month and Rs.22,800/- per annum. The age of the deceased was taken as 30 years based on Ex.A-2, the post-mortem certificate. Following the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.3,87,600/- (Rs.22,800/- x 17 = Rs.3,87,600/-) towards pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. In addition, the Tribunal granted amounts under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% as follows:- Sl.N o. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.3,87,600/- 2 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the minor daughter on the death of her father Rs. 25,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the parents (Rs.10,000/- each) Rs. 20,000/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs.4,63,600/- rounded off to Rs.4,64,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the Tribunal in this case has taken 17 multiplier and higher compensation was granted. The multiplier has to be reduced. It is further contended that exorbitant amount has been granted for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. He pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation. 9. Counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand pleaded that the income of the deceased driver is supported by Ex.A- 8, salary certificate and Ex.A-9 voucher and the evidence of P.W.3, the employer. The Tribunal has taken a paltry sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as income of the deceased. If the income is taken as claimed noting the relevant period of accident that i.e., 2004, the compensation, even if the multiplier is reduced, will be much more than the amount granted by the Tribunal towards pecuniary loss. 10. As far as other amounts are concerned, it is stated that since lesser compensation has been granted towards loss of pecuniary benefits, the marginally higher compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection can be justified as the total compensation in this case is just and reasonable and does not require reduction. 11. Having considered the submissions of either side and the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2004. The income of the deceased, said to be a driver-agriculturist, was claimed Rs.6,000/- per month and the same was supported by Exs.A-8 and A- 9 supported by oral evidence of P.W.3. The Tribunal, however, has taken it as Rs.2,500/- per month only. It should be more in view of the Apex Court's decision in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007 (1) Supreme 514. In that case, the Apex Court fixed the income of the taxi driver at Rs.4,000/- per month. Even if Rs.4,000/- is taken as income per month and lesser multiplier of 13 or 14 is adopted, the compensation for pecuniary loss will be much more than what has been granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the higher multiplier taken in this case compensates for the lesser income taken and therefore, the compensation is justified. (ii) Considering the period of accident, which happened in the year 2004 and the low income taken, the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the 25 years young widow and the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the 6 years old minor and the sum of Rs.10,000/- each granted towards loss of love and affection to the aged parents is not on the higher. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) On an over all consideration of the compensation, the award granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the appellant has not made out any case to reduce the compensation any further. 12. Since the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award is passed on 24.3.2006, the interest granted at 7.5% stands confirmed. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Counsel for the appellant prays eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and it is granted. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1.First Additional District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Salem. + 1 CC To Mr.A.Babu, Advocate SR NO.65927 + 1 CC To Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate SR NO.66099 Judgment in C.M.A.No.3287 of 2006 CK {CO} TP/23.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/