IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.NO. 2061 OF 2007 M.P.1/07 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division -II, Vellore. ... Appellant/ Respondent Vs. 1. Chinnamani 2. Minor Kokila 3. Minor Ramachandran 4. Minor Sumathi (Respondents 2 to 4 are son and daughters of Mr. Chinnamani and representing them in the capacity of guardian and next friend. .. Respondents 1 to 4/ petitioners 1 to 4 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 28.9.2006 in passed in MACTOP No. 804 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem. For Appellant : Mr. N. Anand For Respondents: Mr. V. Kumaravelan JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 28.9.2006 in passed in MACTOP No. 804 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 17.9.2003. The deceased Palani Ammal aged 36 years, agriculturist and a coolie was travelling in the Appellant Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN 23 N 1387 from Chengam to Tiruvannamalai. The said bus hit a parked lorry and in that accident the said Palaniammal suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to Tiruvannamalai Government Hospital. She was inpatient for some time and discharged. After few months of the accident, she died on 11.1.2004. The husband aged about 41 years and two minor daughters aged about 15 years and 11 years and the minor son aged 12 years filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- as compensation. 3. Several other passengers, who were travelling in the bus were injured and they have also filed claim petition and the Tribunal passed an award in common. The husband of the deceased Palaniammal was examined as P.W.1. Other claimants were also examined as P.Ws. 2 to 4. Dr. Mahadevan, was examined as P.W.5. Documents Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal one Dhanasekaran was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. In the common award, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. As against the award passed in some of the claim petitions, no appeal has been filed by the appellant transport corporation except the present case. Therefore, the plea of the appellant in this case with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation and the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is confirmed. 5. The Tribunal decided the issue with regard to the quantum of compensation in paragraph 13 of the award and granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as a lump sum compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. 6. The Tribunal is not justified in passing such an award without giving reasons as to how the quantum of compensation has been arrived at. This practice is not approved. The claimants however are entitled to compensation under various heads like pecuniary loss, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and transport expenses. Even, if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- p.m., considering her age, occupation, the total pecuniary loss itself will be more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, the husband is entitled to loss of consortium and the three minor children are entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection having lost https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their mother at the young age and also funeral expenses and transport expenses. Therefore, this Court finds no good reasons to reduce the quantum of compensation any further as also the 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 2007. 7. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, MP No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. It is stated that entire amount has been deposited. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To The I Additional District Judge The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. 1 cc to Mr.V. Kumaravelan, Advocate, Sr. 66003 1 cc to Mr.N. Anand, Advocate, SR. 65580 CMA No. 2061 of 2007 RSY (CO) kk 9/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/