BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/10/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1233 of 2009 1.Kalimuthu alias Kalimuthan 2.Muniammal .. Appellants Vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukkottai. .. Respondent Prayer Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the order and decretal order dated 19.06.2009 and made in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ramanathapuram. !For Appellants ... Mr.K.Kumaravel ^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Royce Emmanuel :JUDGMENT
Challenge is made in this appeal to the award, dated 19.06.2009 and made
in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Court), Ramanathapuram.
2.The appellants are the claimants in the claim petition, whereas, the
respondent is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukkottai. The
appellants have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.NO.78 of 2007 before the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
death of their son, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on
19.03.2007, at 11.30 a.m, near Naranamangalam bus stop on the road leads from
R.S.Mangalam to Devipattinam involving the passenger bus, bearing registration
No. TN-55-N-0428 belonging to the first respondent’s Corporation.
3.The Tribunal after evaluating the evidences available on record has
totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the award of
the Tribunal, the appellants have come forward with this appeal for the
enhancement of the compensation.
4.When the appeal came up for hearing, Mr.K.Kumaravel learned counsel for
the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has gone to the extent of passing
an award of Rs.1,94,000/- without appreciating the evidences placed on record.
He has also submitted that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was aged
about 22 years and he was employed in Maldives and his monthly income has not
been properly assessed by the Tribunal.
5.Mr.Rayace Immanuel, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that as decided in Sarla varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
(2009)4 MLJ 997 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when a bachelor
happens to meet with an accident, instead of giving 1/3 deduction it may be
appropriated to give 1-. deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased and to that effect, both the learned counsels have suggested that the
monthly income of the deceased to be taken as Rs.4,000/-. Since the age of the
mother was 55 years at the time of occurrence, her age to be taken into account,
as decided in Smt.Kalpana’s case reported in 2007(1) TAN MAC (1) SC.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased has been determined at
Rs.4,000/- and giving 50% deduction, the remaining . comes to Rs.2,000/-. The
annual dependency of the family would be Rs.24,000/-. Since, it is decided in
Smt.Kalpana’s case reported in 2007(1) TAN MAC 1 SC, that the age of the
deceased or the age of the parents, whichever is higher must be the criterion to
ascertain the quantum, the multiplier of 11′ could be applied in this case.
6.On application of this multiplier system, the annual loss of income of
the family would be Rs.2,64,000/- i.e., (Rs.24,000 x 11). Besides this, towards
the loss of love and affection for each claimants at the rate of Rs.10,000/-,
comes to Rs.20,000/-. Towards funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- can be allowed and
apart from this, another sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transportation can also be
allowed. In total, a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- can be allowed towards the
compensation for the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the award of
Rs.1,94,000/- passed by the Tribunal has been enhanced to Rs.2,92,000/-. The
respondent Corporation is directed to pay this amount to the appellants along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount directly from the
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. There is no order
as to costs.
The Principal District Judge,