IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.1.2009 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 914 of 2003 ....... Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, 37 Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. .. Appellant/ respondent Vs. 1. Minor Vadivel 2. Minor Sakthivel (minors rep. by guardian cousin brother Shanmugam) ..Respondents/petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 7.8.2001 made in MCOP No. 742 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court) Tiruppur. For Appellant : Miss.S. Geetha for Mr. Ramesh Babu For Respondents : Mr. D. Selvarajan ......... JUDGMENT
The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 7.8.2001 made in MCOP No. 742 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court) Tiruppur.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 2.6.1994. The deceased Kandaswamy, a foreman, aged 45 years, was riding a by-cycle, when he was hit by the transport corporation bus, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and he died. He is survived by two sons aged 13 and 11 years respectively. They filed the claim for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased father was Rs.4,500/- p.m.
3. In support of the claim, second son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Veluchamy was examined as P.W.2 and Ulaganathan was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.A4 and A5 are the salary certificates. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was let in.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who is responsible for the accident and the death and the liability fixed on of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal in this case, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.48,000/- p.a. Based on the age of the deceased and in terms of second schedule to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 15-1/3=Rs.4,80,000/-). The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits
Rs. 4,80,000/-
2
Funeral expenses
Rs. 2,000/-
Total
Rs.4,82,000/-
rounded off to Rs.4,50,000/-
Though the total comes to Rs.4,82,000/-, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs.4,50,000/- saying it is rounded off.
6. In appeal, the only point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 2.6.1994. The deceased was 45 years old foreman and the income of the deceased was supported by Ex.A4 salary certificate. The Tribunal without considering the salary certificate, fixed the income at Rs.4,000/- p.m. (ii) In terms of the second schedule to Section 163 A of the M.V.Act, the proper multiplier will be 15 as the deceased is 45 years old.
(iii) The future prospects of the deceased has not been taken into consideration.
(iv) No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the minor children.
(v) The claim is for Rs.9,00,000/-. Though the total comes to Rs.4,82,000/-, the Tribunal for no good reason reduced the same to Rs.4,50,000/-. There is no basis for such reduction.
(vi) Considering the above aspects, the total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- does not deserve to be reduced as also the interest at 9% as the accident happened in the year 1994 and the award was passed in the year 2001.
8. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that entire award amount has already been deposited and the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
ra
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
( Sub Court),
Tiruppur