IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20.11.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3589 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (Division I)Ltd. Pallavan House, Chennai .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. R.Hemamalini 2. R.Praveenkumar (Minor) 3. R.Saroja 4.V.G.Ramachandran Minor 2ndRespondent rep.by his mother and next friend R.Hemamalini. .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 21.10.2005 in MCOP No.361 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ( Addl.District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V.), Chengalpattu at Tiruvallur. For Appellant : Mr. M.Krishnamoorthy For respondent : .... JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 21.10.2005 in MCOP No.361 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ( Addl.District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V.), Chengalpattu. 2. It is a case of collision between the appellant Transport Corporation bus and the two wheeler, which was driven by the deceased in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this case. The accident in this case happened on 13.03.2004. The deceased Ravichandran, a Manager in a private Company, aged about 38 years, was travelling in a two wheeler and the said vehicle was hit by the appellant Transport Corporation bus and in that accident, he died. The wife, aged about 29 years, minor son 9 years, mother aged 65 and father aged 73 of the deceased Ravichandran filed a claim petition for compensation in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Manindran and Kumar were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Documents Exs.P1 to P.6 were marked. Ex.P.1 is copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the inquest report. Ex.P.3 is the death Certificate of Ravichandran. Ex.P.4 is the legal heir Certificate. Ex.P.5 is the copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P.6 is the Salary Certificate. On the side of the respondent, One Abimanyu, conductor and one Muniraj, driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2. No documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. On behalf of the claimants, the eye witness deposed that the bus of the appellant Transport Corporation Bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the two wheeler. The driver and conductor of the bus deposed that when the bus was proceeding on a main road, the motor cyclist, who was behind the container lorry coming from the opposite direction, tried to over take the said container lorry and in that process came to the wrong side of the road and hit against the bus and suffered grievous injuries and died. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of R.Ws 1 and 2. However, based on the Ex.P.1, First Information Report and P.3, death report and the statement of P.W.2, eye witness and also considering the nature of the complaint given by one Ramachandran against the driver of the bus in question, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident, in this case happened because of the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 was not accepted as the Tribunal came to the conclusion as it was a self serving oral testimony. The Tribunal held that there is no material on record except the evidence of R.Ws 1 and 2 to hold that the deceased was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner as alleged by the appellants. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this point stands confirmed. 5. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the age of the deceased as per Ex.P.5-Post Mortem Certificate, is 35 years. The Legal heir Certificate has been filed. In the absence of sufficient materials to accept the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, the annual contribution to the family was taken as Rs.24,000/- The Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and granted a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sum of Rs.3,84,000/- as pecuniary loss to the dependents. The Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In all, the Tribunal granted the compensation as follows with interest 7.5%. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Pecuniary loss Rs. 3,84,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- 3. Loss to the Estate Rs. 2,500/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs 1,93,500/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the multiplier of 16 should be reduced stating that it is high. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. a) The accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2005. The deceased is 35 years old and a Manager in a private Company. This is supported by the evidence of P.W.3 and also by salary Certificate, Ex.P.6. Therefore, the income fixed at Rs.3,000/- is very low. b) The Tribunal has adopted multiplier as per Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if the multiplier is questioned by the appellant stating that it is marginally higher, the fact that the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is very low, the higher multiplier would justify the compensation awarded in this case. c) Further, in this case, for loss of consortium to the wife, a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted and no amount was granted for loss of love and affection to the mother and the father of the deceased. Considering all these aspects, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, does not require any further reduction, so also the interest at the rate of 7.5%, as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in 2005. 7. Finding no merits, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Addl.District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.V.), Chengalpattu at Tiruvallur. CMA No. 3589 of 2008 RSM(CO) EM/29.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/