IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3375 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division, Dharmapuri, Parathipuram ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Krishnammal, 2.Vathanamathi. ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 5.2.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.857 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 5.2.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.857 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri. 2. The only contention raised by the 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 28.11.2005. The deceased Selvakumar aged 26 years, working as a bore-well mechanic, was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle on Bargur-Krishnagiri Main Road, when he was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. In the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and died. The mother, aged 50 years and sister aged 30 years filed a claim in a sum of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. 4. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Thangaraj, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. One John Xavier, the proprietor of a bore-well, was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R. and Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate and On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, respondent before the Tribunal, no document was filed. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. 5. 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. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. 7. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with from paragraphs 5 of the award onwards in answer to point No.3. The Tribunal in this case, fixed the age of the deceased at 26 years based on Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as against Rs.6,500/- claimed by the claimants at the time of her evidence in chief. Accordingly, the annual income was determined at Rs.36,000/-. Considering the age of the mother, who was aged 45 years old (as stated by P.W.1 in her evidence) at the time of accident and also taking into consideration, the fact that the deceased Selvakumar was 26 years old bachelor, the Tribunal adopted 13 multiplier and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/-). After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. 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.3,12,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the mother on the death of her son Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the sister on the death of her brother Rs. 5,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 5 Mental agony for mother and sister (Rs.10,000/- each) Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.3,49,000/- 8. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier "13" adopted in this case by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the deceased in this case is a bachelor earning member. A sum of Rs.10,000/- each granted towards mental agony is not justified and therefore, the quantum of 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) The accident in this case happened on 6.4.2005. The deceased Selvakumar was a bachelor and a bore-well mechanic. The income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has taken the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. The income determined by the Tribunal in the case of an accident which happened in the year 2005 is very much on the lower side. (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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2005. Considering the same, and also the fact that the deceased was a bore-well mechanic, the Tribunal in this case ought to have taken higher income. (iii) Since the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal was very low, the marginally higher multiplier adopted by the Tribunal will justify the total compensation awarded including the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards mental agony. The said amount can be justified towards loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents. (iv) The amount granted towards loss of love and affection is very low. (v) Since the income taken by the Tribunal was very much on the lower side and the amount granted for loss of love and affection to the mother and sister was also very low, the marginally higher multiplier "13" will compensate same. (vi) The appellant has not made out a just case to reduce the compensation any further. (vii) 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 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 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, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. Additional District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri. +1cc to Mrs. B.Vijayakshmi, Advocate Sr 62241 RSI (CO) km/25.11. C.M.A.No.3375 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/