JUDGMENT
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the award and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani made in MACTOP No. 449 of 2001 dated 29.01.2004.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 28.5.2001 about 5.00 hours, the deceased Shanmugham was travelling in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-33-N-0646 at the Erode-Bhavani Road. The bus stopped at Sakthi Road near Kamaraj Nagar bus stop. While the deceased was getting down from the bus and when the deceased’s one leg was on the road and the another leg on the foot-board, the driver of the bus suddenly took the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without noticing the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately the deceased was taken to Erode Government Hospital and was admitted, but later he died in the hospital. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are wife, two sons and two daughters of the deceased. The Claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation or not?
b) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation or not? If so, what is the amount and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,10,120/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law.
5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation, witness R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the second respondent. P.W.2 is one Vijayakumar, who is the eye witness of the accident and also the passenger of the bus involved in the accident. R.W.1 is the driver of the bus. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the sketch. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Observation Mahazar. Ex.P4 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P6 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.P7 is the bills given by S.P.S. Fruit Commission Agent. After considering the materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,10,120/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 5,55,120/-
Loss of consortium 25,000/-
Loss of love and affection 25,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
----------
Total... 6,10,120/-
==========
There is a finding given by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. It was stated that the deceased was a fruit vendor and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. But there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. Ex.P7 is the bills given by S.P.S. Fruit Commission Agent, which shows that the deceased used to buy fruits and selling the same. Taking into consideration Ex.P5, the Post Mortem Certificate, wherein it is stated that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of accident, and also the earning capacity of the deceased by relying on Ex.P7, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/-. Thereafter, from the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal deducted Rs. 666/- on unit basis and also Rs. 250/- towards miscellaneous expenses of the deceased, totalling to Rs. 916/-, and determined the loss of income that would have been contributed by the deceased to his family, at Rs. 3,084/-. Accordingly the Tribunal arrived at the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 37,008/-. Thereafter adopting the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal arrived at Rs. 5,55,120/- as the loss of income to the family of the deceased (Rs.3,084/- x 12 x 15). Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in determining Rs. 4,000/- as monthly income. Instead of deducting 1/3 from the said amount, the Tribunal deducted only Rs. 916/-. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from the monthly income. If 1/3rd of the amount is deducted, the contribution of the deceased to his family, works out to Rs. 2,700/- and accordingly the annual income works out to Rs. 32,400/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 which is not correct. The proper multiplier that should be adopted is 13. Therefore, if 13 multiplier is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs. 4,21,200/- (Rs.2,700/- x 12 x 13). Hence the loss of income is modified to Rs. 4,21,200/- as against the amount of Rs. 5,55,120/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, i.e., 41 years old, and also the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration of the widow and four children, I feel the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges. It would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under this head. Therefore, the details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 4,21,200/-
Loss of consortium 25,000/-
Loss of love and affection 25,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Transport charges 5,000/-
----------
Total... 4,81,200/-
==========
Thus the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,81,200/- as against the compensation of Rs. 6,10,120/- awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
6. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs. 4,81,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit.
7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed.