IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.1437 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem.7. ... Appellant/ Respondent vs. 1. Valarmathi 2. Minor Lakshmi (minor rep. by her next friend guardian and mother first petitioner Valarmathi) ... Respondents/Claimant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 27.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem. For appellant : Mr. V. Ramesh For respondents : Mr. P. Mathivanan JUDGMENT Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 27.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident, in this case, happened on 17.1.2007. The deceased Sagadevan said to be an agriculturist and a owner of the bullock cart, was riding the cart https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the purpose of transporting goods. The cart was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus and in that accident, he suffered grievous injuries and was taken to Government MKMC Hospital, Salem. He was in hospital for more than 4 months and one week and he died on 25.10.2001. The bullock cart was totally damaged and the bulls died. The wife aged 30 years and the minor daughter, aged 9 years have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim petition, the wife was examined as P.W.1. Documents Ex.A1 to A10 were marked. One Madeswaran, Manager of the transport corporation, was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The question of negligence was decided in paragraphs 5 and 6 in answer to point No.1. The Tribunal, based on oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly, the F.I.R. and the charge sheet filed against the bus driver and the fact that the driver or conductor of the bus were not examined, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant transport corporation bus driver. The said finding is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing on the part of the appellant. No material is placed on behalf of the appellant to rebut 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. Therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal stands confirmed. 5. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same was decided in paragraph 7 in answer to point No.2. As per the post mortem certificate Ex.A5, the age of the deceased was taken as 45 years and it is not in dispute. The Tribunal therefore adopted 15 multiplier as per the second schedule to the motor vehicles Act. As per the evidence on record, the accident happened on 17.6.2001 and the deceased died on 25.10.2001 in the hospital. The deceased has undergone pain and suffering during the period prior to his death. Evidence was let in regarding the damage caused to the bull and the bullock cart. As far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,700/- p.m. of which 1/3rd was deducted and the contribution to the family was fixed as Rs.1800/- p.m. and Rs.21,600/- p.a. (Rs.1800/- x 12=Rs.21,600/-) The Tribunal by adopting 15 multiplier as per the second schedule determined the total pecuniary loss in a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- (Rs.1800/- x 12 x 15 =Rs.3,24,000/-). In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,24,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- 3 Loss of consortium Rs. 12,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 5 Damage to bullock cart Rs. 20,300/- 6 Injury to one bullock Rs. 5,000/- 7 Death of one bullock Rs. 10,000/- 8 Scan expenses Rs. 350/- 9 Pain and suffering Rs. 6,000/- 10 Transport expenses Rs. 1,500/- Total Rs.3,91,650/- 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the death of 45 years old agriculturist and bullock cart owner, the Tribunal adopted higher multiplier of 15 and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants stated that the deceased was engaged in agricultural operations and was also earning by way of transporting goods with the help of his bullock cart and therefore, his income should be atleast Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has fixed a meager sum of Rs.2,700/- p.m. as income and hence, the quantum of compensation need not be disturbed or reduced. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that except the quantum of compensation granted for loss of pecuniary benefits based on 15 multiplier, all other amounts are not in dispute. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance – vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007 (1) Supreme 514 and in The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC). He pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand pleaded that the income taken as Rs.2700/- p.m. is very low. He relied upon the following decisions to fix 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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. 10. In view of the above two decisions, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,000/- of which, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the pecuniary loss to the dependents would be Rs.2,000/- p.m. and adopting multiplier of 13 considering the age of the deceased, the total pecuniary loss is determined as Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-). All other amounts are not disputed and the same are confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,24,000/- Rs. 3,12,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 2,500/- 3 Loss of consortium Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 12,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 5 Damage to bullock cart Rs. 20,300/- Rs. 20,300/- 6 Injury to one bullock Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 7 Death of one bullock Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 8 Scan expenses Rs. 350/- Rs. 350/- 9 Pain and suffering Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6,000/- 10 Transport expenses Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 1,500/- Total Rs.3,91,650/- Rs.3,79,650/- 11. Since the accident happened in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2007, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,79,650/- from Rs.3,91,650/-. (ii) Out of the award amount of Rs.3,79,650/-, the wife of the deceased, viz., respondent No.1/claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- together with interest and cost. (iii) The minor daughter of the deceased, viz., respondent No.2/ claimant No.2, is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,99,650/- together with interest. (iv) The share of the minor 2nd respondent/2nd claimant shall be invested in any nationalised bank proximate to the place of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ residence of the first respondent/first claimant for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minor attains majority. The mother of the minor first respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest in respect of the share of the minor once in three months directly from the bank and for the said purpose the first respondent/first claimant shall open a savings bank account on the same branch and the interest amount shall be transferred to the account to be maintained by the mother. R. SUDHAKAR,J., (v) The nationalised bank to which the amount will be deposited, shall intimate to the first respondent/first claimant of such deposit and confirm the same to the Tribunal that the first claimant has been duly informed. The Tribunal to inform the bank accordingly. (vi) Since the deposit is in the case of minor, the Tribunal is directed to send a report containing the details of the deposit to the High Court on such deposit. (vii) There will be no order as to cost. (viii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge), Salem. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 CC To Mr.V. Ramesh, Advocate, SR NO.19043 1 CC To Mr. P. Mathivanan, Advocate, SR NO.61121 CMA No. 1437 of 2008 ntk(co) pmk/19.1.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/