IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3653 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-I, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Appellant/1st Respondent vs. 1.Perumal, 2.Neela, 3.Vasudevan, 4.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kamala Arcade, 3rd Floor, 669, Mount Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 2 and 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 16.3.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.504 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Cuddalore. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran ----- JUDGMENT The State Express Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 16.3.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.504 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. At the time of admission, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 31.7.2002. The deceased Senthilkumar, aged 33 years, Junior Instructor employed in a private concern by name M/s.Kumaran I.T.I., Thiruvotriyur, Chennai-19, was travelling on a van from Trichy to Chennai. The said vehicle was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident the said Senthilkumar sustained grievous injuries and died. The other co-passenger in the van including driver of the van died. The father aged 63 years and the mother aged 58 years claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs stating that their son was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Suresh, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A- 1 to A-7 were marked, the details which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R. dated 31.7.2002, Ex.A-2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report in respect of bus dated 31.7.2002, Ex.A-3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report in respect of van dated 31.7.2002, Ex.A-4 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.A-5 is the copy of the post-mortem certificate dated 31.7.2002, Ex.A-6 is the salary certificate of the deceased and Ex.A-7 series are the school and college certificates of the deceased. No oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with in paragraph 11 of the award in answer to point No.3. The The Tribunal based on Ex.A-6 salary certificate, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,700/- per month and annual income at Rs.56,400/-, of which 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the dependents was fixed at Rs.37,600/-. Based on Ex.A-7, school and college certificates, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 33 years. Relying upon the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and also taking note of the age of the claimants, viz., the father aged 63 years and the mother aged 58 years, the Tribunal fixed the multiplier by adopting the law of average as follows:- The multiplier according to the age of the father : 5 The multiplier according to the age of the mother : 8 --- Total 13 --- Average : 13/2 = 6.5 Rounded off to : 7 The Tribunal adopting 7 multiplier as above granted a sum of Rs.2,63,200/- (Rs.37,600/- x 7 = Rs.2,63,200/-) towards loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents. In addition, the Tribunal also granted amounts under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 9% per annum:- Sl.N o. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents Rs.2,63,200/- 2 Loss of love and affection (Rs.25,000/- each) Rs. 50,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.3,25,700/- 7. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that for loss of love and affection higher amount has been granted to the parents and interest at 9% is on the higher, considering the period of accident and the date of award. 8. This court, however, is not inclined to interfere with the compensation granted by the Tribunal for the following reasons:- (i) Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor earning member. He was 33 years old. He was supporting his parents. The Tribunal in this case has taken the income of the deceased for the period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accident (i.e.) 2002. The possibility of higher income to the deceased by efflux of time has to be considered as one component. Further, if the age of the mother is taken, the multiplier will be 8 as against 7 taken in this case. The marginally higher interest will compensate the shortfall if any in the multiplier. Therefore, the interest of 9% granted by the Tribunal can be justified. (ii) The sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to each of the claimants/parents though appear to be marginally higher, does not require further reduction as it is apparent that the deceased has not married till about 33 years and he was supporting the parents with care. The death of the son to the aged parents is a great shock and that requires just compensation to be granted by court of law. The loss of love and affection on the death of their son cannot be measured in terms of money. However, the amount granted on this head is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and does not require any reduction. 9. Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant transport corporation prays for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1. Principal Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Cuddalore. + 1 CC To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate SR NO.66697 Judgment in C.M.A.No.3653 of 2008 RSM {CO} TP/17.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/