IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.12.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.Nos. 3429, 3430 and 3950 of 2008 ........ CMA No. 3429 of 2008:- The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Appellant/respondent Vs. Renuka (minor) rep. by her mother and guardian Sivakami. .. Respondent/petitioner CMA No. 3430 of 2008:- The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Appellant/respondent Vs. Devi (minor) rep. by her mother and guardian Patchaiyammal. .. Respondent/petitioner CMA No. 3950 of 2008:- The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Appellant/respondent Vs. 1. Karpagam 2. Jayanthi (mimor) 3. Bhuvaneswari (minor) 4. Vedavalli @ Divya (minor) (minors are rep. by their mother and guardian Karpagam) 5. Devaki Ammal .. Respondents/ Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeals filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 29.11.2005 made in MCOP No. 526 of 2004, 527/04 and 538/04 {S.C.M.C.O.P No.72/03, 73/03 and 110/03 respectively on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam} on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Fast Track Court No.I) Tindivanam. For Appellant : Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy For Respondents in CMA No.3950/2008 : Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy ......... COMMON JUDGMENT The State Transport Corporation has filed these three appeals challenging the common award dated dated 29.11.2005 made in MCOP No. 110 of 2003, 72 and 73 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Fast Track Court No.I MCOP Nos. 526 and 527 and 538 of 2004) Tindivanam. 2. On 19.1.2003 at about 19.30 hours, the deceased Chinnaraj was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 09 AA 4934 from Pidagam bus stop towards Ulundurpet when the transport corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 07 N 9377, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the motor cycle. In that accident, the said Chinnaraj sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Villupuram Government Hospital. He however died on the way. On the death of Chinnaraj, the wife aged 35 years, three minor daughters aged 15 years, 13 years and 7 years respectively and the mother aged 62 years, and the father filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. 3. One minor girl by name Renuga, D/o Ravi, aged 14 years, and another girl Devi, D/o Venu, aged 14 years, who were travelling along with the said Chinnaraj, suffered injuries in the said accident. They were treated at Villupuram Government Hospital and thereafter, they were treated at General Hospital, Chennai. For the injuries suffered by minor Renuga, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. For the injuries suffered by minor Devi, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. 4. In support of the claim, wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One patchaiammal, mother of the injured claimant in MCOP No. 73 of 2003 was examined as P.W.3. Mother of another injured claimant in MCOP No. 72 of 2003 was examined as P.W.3. One Subramani, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.4. Dr. Sekar was examined as P.W.5. One Jeyadevamenan, official of the Villupuram District police department was examined as P.W.6. Documents Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 5. As far as the negligence is concerned, the plea of the appellant is that the deceased Chinnaraj along with two minor girls hit the bus on the left side while he attempted to enter into the main road from a lyelane. The evidence of P.W.4, is that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and the bus hit the two wheeler and the negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the eye witness and the documentary evidence filed in support of the claim petition and fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Consequently, the liability to compensate the claimants was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Except the evidence of the driver and in the absence of documentary evidence to support the plea of negligence on the part of the deceased, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence stands confirmed. This Court is unable to come to a different conclusion on this issue. 6. CMA No. 3429 of 2008:- Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the minor girl Renuga suffered fracture of the right femur and she was treated in the General Hospital, Chennai from 19.1.2003 to 30.1.2003 and the disability has been assessed at 20% under Ex.A11. Considering the age, the disability assessed at 20%, 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 Disability assessed at 20% Rs. 20,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 1,500/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs. ,500/- Total Rs. 33,000/- 7. No amount has been granted for attender charges and meager amount has been granted for extra nourishment. Considering the nature of injury, age of the injured claimant, percentage of the disability assessed and the period of treatment taken, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal by way of reduction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. CMA No. 3430 of 2008:- Insofar as the minor claimant Devi is concerned, she suffered head injury and injuries all over the body. The doctor assessed the disability at 5% under Ex.A13. She took treatment in General Hospital, Chennai from 19.1.2003 to 24.1.2003. Considering the age of the injured claimant and the period of treatment, 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 Disability assessed at 5% Rs. 5,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 7,000/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs. 14,000/- 9. This court does not find any good reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation as meager amount has been granted for transport expenses and extra nourishment for the injury and treatment taken by the injured young girl. Further no amount has been granted for attender charges. Hence, there is no case made out for reduction of the compensation. 10. CMA No. 3950 of 2008:- The deceased in this case is 41 year and six months old police constable. His income as per Ex.A4 is Rs.6,151/-. Considering the number of claimants viz., wife, three minor children, aged father and mother and also taking note of number of years of service, the Tribunal after fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6150/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and by adopting 15 multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.7,38,000/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate 7.5%.p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 7,38,000/- 2 For mental agony to the wife Rs. 5,000/- 3 For mental agony to other claimants Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Total Rs.7,68,000/- 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in granting higher compensation by adopting higher multiplier and the same has to be reduced . 12. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as on the date of the accident and the future prospects has not been taken into consideration. The Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier as per the second schedule of the Act. No amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife and meager amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the minor children and aged parents. Hence, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation by way of reduction. Even if there is some amount is excess, it can be adjusted under other heads where the quantum is less. 13. In all these cases, the Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. As the accident happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2005, the interest granted by the Tribunal in all the three cases at 7.5% p.a. is confirmed. 14. Finding no merits, all the three appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount in all the three cases and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants in all the cases are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( Fast Track Court No.I) Tindivanam. + 1 CC To Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate SR NO.70767 + 1 CC To Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate SR NO.70953 CMA Nos.3429, 3430 & 3950 of 2008 KU {CO} TP/28.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/