IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.11.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.1799 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Main Road, Salem-7. .. Appellant/ respondent Vs. 1. Perumal 2. Saroja ... respondents/ petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 21.1.2008 in MCOP No. 83 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court), Salem. For Appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : No Appearance JUDGMENT Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 21.1.2008 in MCOP No. 83 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court), Salem. Even though the respondents were served on 20.7.2008, there is no appearance on their behalf. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. One Ranjeethkumar, aged 19 years, a bachelor, working in a STD booth, was travelling in the transport corporation bus which hit against an electric post on a bridge as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the bus. He sustained grievous injuries and died. Along with him, other passengers also suffered injuries. A case was registered against the transport corporation bus driver in Cr. No. 660 of 2004 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation by the mother, aged 40 years and the father aged 46 years. According to the claimants, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim petition, the mother was examined as P.W. 1. One Mohanraj was examined as P.W. 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Documents Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the M.V.I. Report. Ex.A3 is the copy of the charge sheet. Ex.A4 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before Tribunal one Manimuthu, officer of the transport corporation was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on record and the fact that the bus hit against the post on the bridge which caused the serious accident, in which, several passengers suffered injuries and one person died, the Tribunal found that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and fixed the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimants. The said finding is not in disputed and the same is confirmed. 5. As regards compensation, the Tribunal decided the issue from paragraph 11 on wards in answer to point No.2. Based on the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the plea that the deceased was working in a STD Booth, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.2,700/- p.m. as against Rs.3,000/- claimed by the claimants. From this 1/3rd was deducted and the contribution to the dependents was taken at Rs.1800/- p.m. Based on the age of the deceased and his mother, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.3,45,600/- (Rs.1800/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,45,600/-) In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,45,600/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 16,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.3,64,100/- wrongly calculated as Rs.3,63,100/- 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 16 taken in the case of death of a bachelor earning member is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. The respondents have been served through Court on 20.7.2008. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, none appeared for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In the present case, the deceased is a bachelor earning member. The possibility of the deceased getting married and the contribution to the family getting reduced is always there. In such view of the matter, the multiplier 16 cannot be adopted in the present case. The income of the deceased was claimed as Rs.3,000/-p.m. However, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.2,700/- p.m. Admittedly, the deceased was working in the STD Booth. 9. The following 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. 10. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2004. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. The contribution to the family after deducting 1/3rd would be Rs.2,000/-. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 , the proper multiplier in the case of deceased bachelor earning member will be 12. Therefore, the loss of pecuniary benefits is determined in a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.2000/- x 12 x 12 = Rs.2,88,000/-). The claimants will be entitled to a further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. A sum of Rs.2,500/- is granted towards transport expenses. The mother aged 40 years and father aged 46 years have lost their son at very young age. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of love and affection as against Rs. 16,000/- granted. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,45,600/- Rs.2,88,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 16,000/- Rs. 30,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 5,000/- 4 Transport expenses --- Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.3,64,100/- wrongly calculated as Rs.3,63,100/- Rs.3,25,500/- 11. Since the accident happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the 2008, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 3,25,500/- from Rs.3,63,100/-. (ii) The interest at 7.5% granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. (iii) Pursuant to the interim order dated 1.7.2008, a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- has been deposited. (iv) Out of the award, The first claimant/ father is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest and the second claimant/ mother is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest and costs. (v) The appellant seeks four weeks time to deposit the balance amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. (vii) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ra To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court), Salem. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section,High Court, Chennai-104. + 1 CC to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi,Advocate,SR.61372 CMA No. 1799 of 2008 GV(CO) EM/13.2.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/