IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.03.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A. No. 531 of 2007 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem Town and Taluk Salem District. .. Appellant vs. 1.Jayaraman 2.Sundari .. Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 13.04.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Court, Dharmapuri) ------ For Appellant : Mr. P.Jagadeeswaran For Respondents : Mr. M. Selvam for T.Pappiah Dharmarajan ------- J U D G M E N T
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem, against the award and decree passed by the Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri, in M.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005, dated 13.04.2006, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 31.07.2004 at about 2 p.m. the deceased Narasimhan along with his brother and relative were proceeding in a cycle to his native place, after purchasing three pigeons from Ariyakulam. When they were proceeding in Tirupathur to Dharmapuri Main Road, keeping to left side of the road and when they had passed Kottavur, the respondent corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1531 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Narasimhan from the back side. As a result, the said Narasimhan died on the spot. Immediately, the brother of the deceased made a complaint against the driver, before Mathikonpalayam Police Station.
4. The said accident was registered by the Mathikonpalayam Police Station in Crime No.337 of 2004, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.
5. The parents of the deceased Narasimhan filed this claim petition and have sought compensation against the respondent transport corporation. The claimants, have submitted that at the time of the said accident, their deceased son Narasimhan was aged about 18 years and that he was a student in the Higher Secondary School. Further, the claimants submitted that their son Narasimhan was also involved in the agricultural operation and as such he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have claimed a compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest, against the transport corporation.
6. The respondent transport corporation has filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition on various grounds stating that the respondent’s driver was not responsible for the said accident. He had driven the vehicle with observing all traffic rules. When the bus was proceeding on Tirupathur to Dharmapuri Main Road, the cyclist deceased Narasimhan, suddenly crossed the road and hit the bus, and caused the accident. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the deceased. Further, the respondent transport corporation stated in the counter statement that the claim amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is excessive and the rate of interest is also on the higher side.
7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has framed two issues for the consideration namely:
1. Whether the accident was committed by the
Transport Corporation bus driver ?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation?
8. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.1 is the second claimant herein and P.W.2 is an eye witness and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely:Ex.P1 is First Information Report,Ex.P2 is post -mortem report of deceased Narasimhan, Ex.P3 is legal heir certificate and Ex.P4 is school Transfer Certificate. On the side of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.
9. The second petitioner was examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she adduced that on 31.07.2004, at about 2 p.m., when her son Narasimhan was proceeding in his cycle, on the Tirupathur to Dharmapuri Highways Road, on the extreme left side of the road, the respondent’s bus bearing Registration No. TN 29 N 1531 came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from behind the petitioner and dashed against the cyclist. As a result, the said Narasimhan died on the spot. One Sundarraj was examined as P.W.2. He adduced his evidence stating that the driver of the bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist. He further stated that he had lodged the complaint before the concerned police officer for investigation. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 the driver of the bus was examined. He adduced in his evidence stating that the cyclist without noticing the bus, suddenly turned the cycle into the path of the bus and hence, the said accident had happened. Hence, the driver of the bus had stated that he was not responsible for the accident.
10. After Considering the evidence of the P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.1, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. As such the Tribunal held that the transport corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
11. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided the quantum of compensation on the basis of the income and age of the deceased . The Tribunal had decided that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the said accident and that he was a student. As such the Tribunal had fixed the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- as his notional income and granted a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for loss of income. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.20,000/- each was granted to the parents of the deceased under the head of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, further directed the respondent transport corporation to deposit the said award amount within a period of one month from the date of its order and the award was apportioned to the claimants equally. In turn, the apportioned share of award was to be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank under the Fixed Deposit scheme and the Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.8,700/-.
12. Aggrieved by the said award and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No.9 of 2005, dated 13.04.2006, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri, the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the multiplier method adopted as 16 is erroneous. As per the age of the deceased, the multiplier method 10 is applicable. Further, he had argued that the Tribunal is award of a sum of Rs.40,000/- for love and affection is on higher side. Hence, the learned counsel prayed before this Court to scale down the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that at the time of the said accident, the deceased age was 19 years. He was also involved in agricultural operation and he was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased had extended his co-operation to his parents by way of earning. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the deceased was the only person maintaining his family. Further, he argued that he was a student studying in 12th standard in Government Higher Secondary School. He was a brilliant student and active person and also participated in sports and games.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the award amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- granted by the Tribunal together with interest 7.5% per annum is fair and reasonable. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for loss of income, after adopting the multiplier of 16 and after having fixed the early income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. In total, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for loss of income and this Court finds it pertinent and fair. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. A sum of Rs.40,000/- had been granted to the parents of the deceased with each of them to receive Rs.20,000/- for love and affection. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum Rs.2,85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% and this Court finds it fair and equitable. Further, the Court permitted the respondents/claimants to withdraw 50% of the award amount, with accrued interest and costs, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
16. As the accident happened in the year 2004, it is open to the respondents/claimants to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P No.9 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Dharmapuri, by filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals, if any.
17. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award and decree dated 13.04.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005, passed by the Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
kj
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
The Additional District Court
Dharmapuri
2.The Section Officer
V.R. Section
High Court,
Madras