IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.Nos.3983 to 3985 of 2004 and C.M.P.Nos.580 and 581 of 2008 in C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004 C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004:- The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Dilip Kumar. ... Respondent/Petitioner C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004:- The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Minor Chandini, 2.Minor Latha, 3.Minor Jaswanth, (Minor respondents are represented by grand father and next friend Bindaram) ... Respondents/Petitioners C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004:- The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1.Kellibai, 2.Bindaram, 3.Minor Chandini, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Minor Latha, 5.Minor Jaswanth. (Minor respondents 3 to 5 are represented by grand father and next friend 2nd respondent Bindaram) ... Respondents/Petitioners All the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award and decrees dated 15.6.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1831, 1833 and 1832 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. For appellant in all the appeals : Mr.S.V.Vasanthakumar For respondents in all the appeals : Mr.M.Kothar Adam ----- COMMON JUDGMENT All the three appeals have been filed by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation challenging the common award 15.6.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1831, 1833 and 1832 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. In all the three appeals, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. 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 in dispute in all the three appeals and the same is confirmed. 4. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 2.10.2001 at 8.00 p.m. on Taramani Road, Chennai, before Indira Nagar Railway Station. The deceased Mohanlal, aged 30 years, his wife Sharmila Devi aged 28 years, her sister Meena, aged 24 years were travelling in the car along with three children. The car was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus. In that accident, three adults, viz., Mohanlal, Mrs.Sharmila Devi and Meena died. 5. On the death of Mohanlal, the mother aged 54 years, father aged 62 years, two minor daughters aged 10 years and 7 years respectively and one minor son aged 4 years have filed a claim in M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004) claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation stating that the said Mohanlal was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earning Rs.15,000/- per month through Pawn broker business. 6. In so far as Sharmila Devi is concerned two minor daughters aged 10 years and 7 years and one minor son aged 4 years have filed a claim in M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004) claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation stating that the deceased Sharmila Devi was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by doing pawn broker business. 7. In so far as the death of Meena is concerned her husband Dilip Kumar aged 30 years field a claim in M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004) claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation stating that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. 8. In all the three cases, the age of the deceased and that of the claimants are not in dispute. 9. The income of the deceased in all the three cases were supported by relevant Exhibits, viz., income tax assessment records. Individual claim petitions were filed by the children for the injuries suffered by them. Common award was passed in all 6 cases. 10. Mr.Dilip Kumar, the husband of the deceased Meena was examined as P.W.1. Mr.Birdaram, the father of the deceased Mohanlal was examined as P.W.2. One Mr.John, the eye witness was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-24 were marked on behalf of the claimants in all the six claims, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of post-mortem certificate of the deceased Meena, Ex.A-2 is the legal heir certificate in respect of M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002, Ex.A-3 series are the income tax returns, Ex.A-4 is the copy of F.I.R., Ex.A-5 is the copy of plan, Ex.A-6 is the copy of charge-sheet, Ex.A-7 is the copy of post-mortem certificate of the deceased Mohanlal, Ex.A-8 is the copy of pan card of the deceased Mohanlal, Ex.A-9 series are the income tax returns, Ex.A-10 is the driving licence of the deceased Mohanlal, Ex.A-11 series are the copies of registration certificate, insurance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ policy, etc., for motor car, Ex.A-12 is the repair order for motor car, Ex.A-13 is the HDFC Bank statement of account, Ex.A-14 is the legal heir certificate in respect of M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002, Ex.A-15 is the copy of post-mortem certificate of the deceased Sharmila Devi, Ex.A-16 is the copy of pan card for the deceased Sharmila Devi, Ex.A-17 series are the income tax returns, Ex.A-18 is the legal heir certificate in respect of M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002, Ex.A-19 is the discharge summary of the injured Jaswanth, Ex.A-20 series are the medical bills for the injured Jaswanth, Ex.A-21 is the discharge summary for the injured Chandhini, Ex.A-22 series are the medical bills for the injured Chandini, Ex.A-23 is the discharge summary for the injured Latha and Ex.A-24 series are the medical bills for the injured Latha. Mr.Munusamy, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. A copy of criminal court judgment was marked as Ex.B-1 on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 11. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and that of the claimants adopted 17 multiplier in the case of the deceased Mohanlal (M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002 – C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004) and 18 multiplier in the case of the deceased Sharmila Devi (M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002 - C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004) and 17 multiplier in the case of the deceased Meena (M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002 – C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004) and granted compensation with 9% interest as follows:- M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004):- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the parents and three minor children Rs.7,48,000/- 2 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 20,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the parents and three minor children Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.7,98,000/- M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004):- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the three minor children on the death of their mother Rs.10,08,000/- 2 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 20,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the three minor children on the death of their mother Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs.10,68,000/- M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004):- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits on the death of his wife Rs.6,12,000/- 2 Loss of consortium to the husband Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 7,500/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of love and affection Rs. 7,500/- Total Rs.6,42,000/- 12. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal in all the three cases is on the higher side. He relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Kalpana and others reported in 2007 ACJ 825 and (ii) The Managing Director, TNSTC – vs. - Sripriya & others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319(SC) and pleaded for reduction in the multiplier and the compensation as well. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand stated that due to the death of Mohanlal and Sharmila Devi, husband and wife, the three minor children have become orphans and they are in the care and custody of the aged grandparents. They have lost their parents at their very young age. Both of the deceased were earning very well and that is supported by the income tax returns. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the multiplier 17 and 18 for the deceased Mohanlal and the deceased Sharmila Devi respectively is correct and need not be reduced. As far as the claim of Dilip Kumar is concerned, the document Ex.A-3 shows that the income of the deceased wife is based on the income tax returns. The contribution of the deceased Meena has been lost to her husband and therefore, considering her young age, viz., 24 years, the multiplier 17 adopted by the Tribunal is justified. 14. M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002(C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004):- The income of the deceased Mohanlal fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.66,000/- per annum is not disputed. After 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependancy was fixed as Rs.44,000/- and 17 multiplier was adopted. The age of the deceased Mohanlal was fixed as 32 years as per Ex.A-8 Income tax Pan Card. The possibility of his income increasing in course of time has to be considered. The deceased Mohanlal was a business man (i.e.) pawn broking. There is bound to be vagaries in the income. The claimants have in this case shown that the income is reasonably increasing year by year. However, the same cannot be taken for fixing the higher income. 15. The choice of multiplier will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation – vs. Susamma Thomas and others reported in (1994)1 ACC 346 (SC) = AIR 1994 SC 1631 has broadly summarized the position in paragraph 11, which reads as follows:- "11. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and awarded the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say, 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the lost of dependency for 45 years – virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 – and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take, for instance, a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs.10,000/-. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent, then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs.10,000/- would be 20. Then the multiplier, i,e., the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc. Usually in English courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up." 16. In the present case, the accident happened in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004 and the award amount has not reached the claimants, three of whom are minors at the time of accident. They also suffered the trauma of their parents death, besides pain and suffering due to the injury. Therefore, the claimants will be getting the compenstion only now that is nearly after eight years after the accident. The quantum of compensation has to be tested in the present day situation like, the cost of living, the rise in price of goods and commodities, the inflationary trend and the devaluation of the money. Though the multiplier in this case was taken on the basis of the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the dependency waning in course of time and further considering the lump sum payment that will be made to the dependents, it will be appropriate to take the multiplier as "16" as against "17". Accordingly, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased will be Rs.7,04,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 16 = Rs.7,04,000/-). The amounts granted by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection to the parents and three minor children is concerned, has to be modified. The parents are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each totalling to Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection on the death of their son. The minor three children are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each in all to Rs.45,000/- towards loss of love and affection on the death of their father. Loss of expectation of life cannot be justified as compensation for loss of love and affection has been granted and hence it is set aside. The sum of Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses which will include transport expenses is confirmed. 17. M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002(C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004):- The analogy in the case above will apply to the case of the claimants in this case who are the children of the deceased Sharmila Devi, wife of the deceased Mohanlal. In this case also the income of the deceased Sharmila Devi is supported by income tax returns Ex.A-17. The income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.84,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.56,000/- which is not disputed. The multiplier in this case also will stand reduced to 14 as against 18. Accordingly, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased will be Rs.7,84,000/- (Rs.56,000/- x 14 = Rs.7,84,000/-). The amounts granted for loss of love and affection to the three minor children is modified and they are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each totalling https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to Rs.45,000/- towards loss of love and affection on the death of their mother. Loss of expectation of life cannot be granted when compensation is granted for loss of love and affection and hence it is set aside. The sum of Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses which will include transport expenses is confirmed. 18. M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002(C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004):- In this case, the husband has lost his wife Meena. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased Meea at Rs.54,000/- per annum as per Ex.A-3 series, income tax returns. After deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased the contribution to the dependent has been fixed at Rs.36,000/- per annum. The possibility of the husband getting married sooner or later has to be considered as a relevant factor and hence the contribution to the family cannot be taken as in the case of other class of dependents. The deceased is aged 24 years and the claimant is aged 30 years old. The husband depending on the income of the wife will not arise. Therefore, the multiplier that has to be taken will be less compared to other claims. Therefore, the multiplier stands reduced to 13 as against 17. If 13 multiplier is adopted, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependent would be Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/-). For loss of consortium, having lost his wife in prime youth and consequent loss of companionship, as against Rs.10,000/- the husband/claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The compensation granted towards loss of expectation of life cannot be granted as compensation for loss of consortium is granted and hence the same is set aside. Having granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, the compensation granted towards loss of love and affection is erroneous and the same is set aside. The amount granted towards funeral expenses in a sum of Rs.5,000/- is confirmed. 19. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- (a) M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002(C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004):- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the parents and three minor children Rs.7,48,000/- Rs.7,04,000/- 2 Expectation of life Rs. 20,000/- --- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- --- 3(a) Funeral and transport expenses --- Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the parents and three minor children Rs. 20,000/- --- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 4(a) Loss of love and affection to the parents (Rs.10,000/- each) --- Rs. 20,000/- 4(b) Loss of love and affection to the three minor children (Rs.15,000/- each) --- Rs. 45,000/- Total Rs.7,98,000/- Rs.7,79,000/- (b) M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002(C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004):- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the three minor children on the death of their mother Rs.10,08,000/- Rs.7,84,000/- 2 Expectation of life Rs. 20,000/- --- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- --- 3(a) Funeral and transport expenses --- Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the three minor children on the death of their mother Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 45,000/- Total Rs.10,68,000/- Rs.8,39,000/- (c) M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004):- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits on the death of his wife Rs.6,12,000/- Rs.4,68,000/- 2 Loss of consortium to the husband Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 30,000/- 3 Expectation of life Rs. 7,500/- --- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of love and affection Rs. 7,500/- --- Total Rs.6,42,000/- Rs.5,03,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. In all the three cases, since the accident happened in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, the interest granted at 9% stands reduced to 7.5% following the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373. 21. It is stated that entire award amount has been deposited in all the appeals as directed by this Court by order dated 7.1.2005. 22. In the result, all the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in part as follows:- (a) M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3985 of 2004):- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.7,79,000/- from Rs.7,98,000/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5%. (iii) The claimants are entitled to the award amount as determined by the order of this court and in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. (iv) The appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount in deposit after settling the claimants. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. (vi) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (b) M.C.O.P.No.1833 of 2002(C.M.A.No.3984 of 2004):- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.8,39,000/- from Rs.10,68,000/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5%. (iii) The claimants are entitled to the award amount as determined by the order of this court and in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. (iv) The appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount in deposit after settling the claimants. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. (c) M.C.O.P.No.1831 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.3983 of 2004):- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5,03,000/- from Rs.6,42,000/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5%. (iii) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the award amount as determined by this court. (iv) The appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount in deposit after settling the claimants. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To M/s. A.Babu, Advocate, Advocate, SR.62107 C.M.A.Nos.3983 to 3985 of 2004 MG(CO) SRA(06/01/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/