IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.495 of 2001 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division III) Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Trichy Formerly known as Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation ... Appellant/Respondent (C.T.Accepted vide as per order of court dated 2.4.01 made in C.M.P.5470/01 by PSDJ) Vs. 1) Kaliyaperumal 2) Balasundari ... Respondents/Claimants This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.357/99 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur and set aside the same. For Appellant : Mr.G.Muniratnam For Respondent : V.P.R.Thillai Raja for Mr.A.A.Venkatesan J U D G M E N T The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division III) which figured as the respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.357/99 is the appellant herein. 2. The respondents herein had filed the above said MCOP claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant transport corporation for the death of their son Ilangilli in a road accident that took place on 19.09.1995 at about 3.30 p.m. near https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Jayankondam bus stand. According to the respondents herein, the said deceased Ilangilli was knocked down by the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-0237 belonging to the appellant transport corporation while he was proceeding in his TVS Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-01 3945 towards west on the east-west road after entering the said road from the street running on the south of the said road. The respondents had also made an averment in the petition to the effect that the driver of the bus which came in the direction of west to east entered the wrong side of the road and hit the deceased and that the said accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Contending further that the said accident resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased Ilangilli, they had made the above said claim as compensation. According to the petition averments, the deceased was aged about 27 years and was having a monthly income of Rs.3,100/- as a diesel mechanic. Based on the said averments, the respondents 1 and 2 herein prayed for an award directing the appellant transport corporation to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation together with an interest from the date of accident till realisation. 3. The petition was resisted by the appellant transport corporation denying the petition averments regarding the nature of accident, the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the reasonableness of the amount claimed as compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted enquiry in which three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 on the side of the respondents herein/petitioners. The conductor of the bus involved in the accident was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. 5. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Tribunal considered the evidence brought before it in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, came to the conlusion that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was at fault and mulcted the liability on the appellant transport corporation. The Tribunal assessed the compensation to which the respondents 1 and 2 were entitled at Rs.3,00,000/- and passed an award directing the appellant transport corporation to pay the said amount along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award both on the question of liability and on the question of quantum, the appellant transport corporation has broughtforth this appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of appeal. 7. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.G.Muniratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.P.R.Thillai Raja, learned counsel for the respondents. The materials available on record were also perused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The appellant transport corporation against which the Tribunal has passed an award directing payment of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 has come forward with the present appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence and the reasonableness of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. In order to substantiate the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 herein that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation, besides producing a certified copy of the First Information Report as Ex.A1, the respondents herein have also examined P.W.2, the person who lodged the complaint with the police. On the other hand, the appellant transport corporation was content with examining R.W.1, who is alleged to be the conductor of the bus involved in the accident. P.W.2 in his statement before the police which formed the basis of the FIR and in his evidence before the Tribunal, was categorical in his assertion that the deceased who came from the north-south street in the direction of south to north entered the east-west road, turned towards west and was proceeding in the direction of west on the left side of the road and that while he was thus proceeding, the bus that came from west to east came to the wrong side of the road and hit the deceased. Except a suggestion that, had the deceased stopped before entering the main road, he would not have met with the accident, there is no other suggestion put to P.W.2 to the effect that he was not an eye witness to speak about the accident. His oral evidence is corroborated by the contents of Ex.A1. 9. This court finds no reason to reject such an evidence of P.W.2, especially in the light of the inability of R.W.1 to deny the suggestion that the driver of the bus who caused accident was removed from service. It is also pertinent to note that R.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that no document was produced to show that he was the conductor on duty in the bus that met with the accident, namely the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-0237. On a re-appreciation of the evidence, this court comes to the conclusion that there is no scope, whatsoever, to interfere with the well considered finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was at fault and the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on his part. Hence the said finding of the Tribunal has got to be confirmed. 10. So far as the challenge made to the award on the question of quantum is concerned, this court is able to find some force and substance in the case of the appellant transport corporation. According to the respondents herein/petitioners, the deceased was aged about 27 years and the respondents 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, were aged 50 years and 45 years respectively. When the claimants are elder than the deceased and the appropriate multiplier that can be selected based on the age of the youngest of the claimants shall be less than the multiplier that can be selected based on the age of the deceased, the first one should be preferred. The Tribunal, without adhering to the above said method, seems to have applied 18 as the appropriate multiplier. As the second respondent (second petitioner) the younger of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimants had completed the age of 45 years as on the date of the accident, multiplier should have been selected based on her age alone and not based on the age of the deceased. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the multiplier selected by the Tribunal is inappropriate and that the appropriate multiplier for a person in the age group of 45 and 50 years, the appropriate multiplier shall be 13. The Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- alone. Deducting 1/3rd, Rs.16,000/- was taken as the multiplicand. The same is not challenged. When the said multiplicand is multiplied by the selected multiplier 13, the compensation for loss of dependency shall be Rs.16,000/- x 13 = Rs.2,08,000/- 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/- as funeral expenses which is slightly on the higher side and hence the same has got to be reduced to Rs.5,000/-. The appellant has no grievance regarding the amount awarded as compensation on other heads. Hence the total amount of compensation to which the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled shall be fixed at Rs.2,18,000/- with the following split- up particulars. Loss of dependency : Rs.2,08,000/- For funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- For mental agony : Rs. 5,000/- ------------- TOTAL Rs.2,18,000/- ------------- 12. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the interest awarded at 12% is on the higher side and hence the same deserves to be reduced. Taking into consideration the then prevailing lending rate of interest, this court feels that the interest shall be reduced to 9%. Subject to the above modifications, the award of the Tribunal shall be confirmed in all other respects. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.2,18,000/-. The rate of interest is also reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Subject to the above said modifications the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar asr/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1) The Principal District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perambalur. Copy to The section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 CC To Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, Advocate, SR NO.41715 1 CC To Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate, SR NO.41913 C.M.A.No.495/2001 ck(co) pmk/21.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/