IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.4.2009
CORAM:-
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
C.M.A.No. 866 of 2009
.....
Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
Villupuram Ltd.,
Villupuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Meri Jerina
2. Lawrence .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the order and decree dated 22.07.2008 passed in MCOP No. 31 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Track Court III) Virudhachalam.
For Appellant : Mr. S.S.Swaminathan
........
JUDGMENT
The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.07.2008 passed in MCOP No. 31 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Track Court III) Virudhachalam.
2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 24.10.2006. The deceased Sasi @ Santhanaraj aged about 26 years, a bachelor, computer engineer was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation which was reversing and in that accident, he died. On his death, the mother aged 43 years and the father aged 47 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1.One Ashok, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2 . Documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked which reads as follows:-
Ex.P1- Copy of the First Information Report.
Ex.P2 Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.
Ex.P3 Copy of the post mortem certificate.
Ex.P4- Charge sheet.
Ex.P5 Degree certificate of the deceased.
Ex.P6 copy of the certificate relating to Computer Education
Ex.P7 Salary certificate.
The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant, the respondent before the Tribunal. –
4. As per Ex.P7, salary certificate, the income of the deceased was Rs.5,300/- p.m. The Tribunal, however, fixed the same at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and after deducting some amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the dependents was taken as Rs.2,670/-p.m. The Tribunal, by adopting 15 multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased in a sum of Rs.4,80,600/- (Rs.2670/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.4,80,600/-). In addition, the Tribunal also granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5.% p.a.
Sl.No
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits
Rs.4,80,600/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs.4,88,600/-wrongly calculated at Rs. 4,87,600/-
5. In appeal, the only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 15 adopted in a case of death of a bachelor earning member is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum compensation for the following reasons.
(i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2006. (ii) The deceased bachelor is a computer engineer in a private company. He was a 26 years old bachelor and earned a sum of Rs.5,300/- p.m. which was supported by Ex.P7.
(iii) The education qualification is supported by records. Therefore, there is no ground for the Tribunal to dispute the qualification and the income.
(iv) The fact that the deceased was working in a reputed hospital and his income is supported by the salary certificate which is commensurate with the living wages during the period of accident, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the same and reduce the income to Rs.4,000/- p.m.
(v) If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,300/- p.m. as per Ex.P7, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.63,600/- and after deducting some amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, and if multiplier applicable to a bachelor earning member is taken, the total loss of pecuniary benefits will be more than the amount granted by the Tribunal.
(vi) Further on the death of the son, who has reached the level of computer engineer and earning, the parents are entitled to higher compensation towards loss of love and affection.
(vii) In this case, no amount has been granted for transport expenses.
(viii) Considering all these aspects, this Court finds no good reason to reduce the compensation any further.
7. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. The Tribunal is directed to suitably amend and arrive at the total compensation in accordance with the compensation granted under each head. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
ra
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Additional District Judge
Fast Track Court III)
Virudhachalam