BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/07/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.No.75 of 2004 and C.M.A.No.76 of 2004 C.M.A.No.75 of 2004 1.Maria Kanagappan 2.Lathis Mary Yesuthangam .. Appellants/Claimants Vs 1.Sivakumar 2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Division - III, Madurai, represented by its Managing Director, Ranithottam, Nagercoil. .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the
award dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002, by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
!For Appellant … Mr.M.Suri
^For Respondents… No representation for R.1
Mr.D.Sivaraman for
M/s.Rajinish Pathiyil
for R.2
C.M.A.No.76 of 2004
#1.Thomas
2.Mary Alphonsal .. Appellants/Claimants
Vs
$1.Sivakumar
2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited, Division – III,
Madurai, represented by its
Managing Director, Ranithottam,
Nagercoil. .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the
award dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002, by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
!For Appellant … Mr.M.Suri
^For Respondents… No representation for R.1
Mr.D.Sivaraman for
M/s.Rajinish Pathiyil
for R.2
:COMMON JUDGMENT
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellants/claimants as
against the award dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.169 of 2002 170 of
2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, granting a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) to the appellants/claimants (in both
the claims) together with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the
petition till date of payment.
2. The Tribunal has directed the second respondent/State Transport
Corporation to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of
passing of the award.
3. The appellants/claimants being the parents of the deceased son Jenil
Shylock, have filed the claim petition M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002, claiming a total
compensation of Rs.25,02,500/- and has restricted the same to a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- only. The appellants/claimants being the parents of the deceased
son Jotrin Carton have filed the claim petition M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002 before
the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.25,02,300/- and has restricted
the same to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- only.
4. The short facts of the claim in both M.C.O.P.Nos.169 and 170 of 2002,
are as follows:
On 22.02.2002, at 01.50 p.m, the deceased Jenil Shylock was riding the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-74-B-3440 with Jotrin Carton as a pillion
rider on the motorcycle and were proceeding from Nullivilai to Monday Market on
the main road and when they came near Rajan Jewellery shop, the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-74-N-0555 which came in the opposite direction, was driven by
the first respondent/driver Sivakumar, with abnormal speed in a rash and
negligent manner and knocked down the deceased and the pillion rider as a result
of which, the deceased Jenil Shylock sustained injuries all over the body. The
accident was witnesses by Joseph Antony Raj, Thanaka Sornam, Vijin Ramesh and
others. Immediately, Jenil Shylock and Jotrin Carton were rushed to the
Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nagercoil, where they were declared dead.
The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the first
respondent. The deceased Jenil Shylock was aged 21 years and he had completed
I.T.I course with fitter subject as specialisation. He was bright in his
studies and also evinced interest in sports and service activities. He
participated in games like Ball-badminton, Kabadi, High Jump, Long Jump and
Pole-vault and obtained meritorious certificates. He was also a member of Kho-
kho and received the appreciation awards for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. He
was brilliant and intelligent. The close relatives of the appellants/claimants
requested them to send the deceased son Jenil Shylock abroad and the
appellants/claimants had made necessary arrangements for obtaining the passport
and the deceased had a valid passport. The deceased was planning to go to
Mumbai and then to Gulf countries, where he would have earned positively a sum
of Rs.10,000/- p.m. The Eraniel Police had registered the case in Cr.No.216 of
2002 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. The first respondent/driver of the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation Limited, was responsible for causing the accident.
Hence, the appellants/claimants prayed for a restricted compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition
till date of realisation with costs.
5. The death of the deceased Jotrin Carton was due to the rash and
negligent driving of the first respondent/driver and if the deceased Jotrin
Carton had not met with the accident, he would have lived upto more than 70
years with a matrimonial life and also would have become an Executive Engineer
in Government Department and reputed Private concerns which was the expectation
of the appellants/claimants (in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002) and they had lost their
only loving son and that they suffered a great shock. Hence, the
appellants/claimants prayed for a restricted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with
interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realisation with
costs.
6. The second respondent/State Transport Corporation took a stand (which
was adopted by the first respondent/driver Sivakumar), before the Tribunal that
the width of the tar road at the accident spot was 26 feet and the tar portion
was 15 feet width and the first respondent/driver was driving the bus very
carefully on the extreme left side of the road, at a slow speed and the person
who was driving the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
that the motorcycle was driving along the wrong side of the road namely on the
right side of the road. Actually, the motorcycle was attempted to overtake a
lorry and therefore, the accident happened and not due to any rashness or
negligence of the first respondent/driver and that the deceased contributed the
accident and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claims.
7. Before the Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002, witnesses P.W.1 to
P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of the
appellants/claimants. On the side of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined
and no documents were marked.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the
compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only)
awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants in both the claim petitions was a
meagre amount and that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was 25%
responsible for causing the accident, was without any evidence and that the
Tribunal should have seen that the income of the deceased would be at least
Rs.3,000/- p.m, and that the deduction of 1/4th of the award amount on
Rs.57,000/- was illegal and that the deduction of 1/3rd of the award amount was
also illegal and therefore, prays for allowing the appeals.
9. Finding on negligence:-
To prove the issue of negligence, the appellants/claimants have examined
the eyewitness Joseph Antony Raj as P.W.3 and he has deposed that on 22.02.2002
at about 01.50 p.m, in the afternoon, he along with Thanga Sornam and Vigin
Ramesh were standing and talking near Rajan Jewellery Shop at Mottaivilai in
Thottiyodu road and at that time, the deceased Jenil Shylock and deceased Jotrin
Carton were coming from Thottiyodu to Monday Market in the motorcycle and at
that time, in the opposite direction, the passenger bus bearing Registration
No.TN-74-N-0555 belonging to the Government came in a high speed and dashed
against the motorcycle unexpectedly while turning on sideways and as a result of
which, one boy died on the spot and another boy died on the way to Hospital and
the bus after dashing against the motorcycle stopped at a distance of 20 feet
from the place of accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence
of the bus driver.
10. P.W.3, Joseph Antony Raj, in his cross-examination has clearly stated
that at the place of occurrence, the width of the road was 23 or 24 feet and the
tar portion was 20 feet width, where two vehicles can pass and the right side of
the bus dashed against the motorcycle.
11. R.W.1, Sivakumar, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-
N-0555 at the time of the accident, in his evidence has stated that he was the
driver of the said bus on 22.02.2002 and he took the bus at 12.45 p.m at Pidalam
and at 01.30 p.m, when the bus came to Mottaivilai, at that time, in the
opposite direction of the bus, two persons came in a two wheeler and that the
motorcyclist dashed against the right side of the bus and that he applied his
brakes immediately and stopped his vehicle and there was a gap of six feet on
the left side of the motorcycle and that the Yamaha motorcyclist drove the
motorcycle in a high speed and when he got down from his bus, he saw two persons
who came in the bike lying outside. R.W.1, in his cross-examination has
categorically stated that his bus stopped at a distance of 10 feet from the
accident spot.
12. P.W.3, Joseph Antony Raj, is the complainant in Ex.P.1 F.I.R, and the
name of the accused is mentioned as Sivakumar, the driver of the Government bus
bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555. In Ex.P.1, F.I.R, the complainant Joseph
Antony Raj (examined as P.W.3) has clearly inter alia stated that ‘in the
aforesaid road, in the direction of east to west, Jenil Shylock, S/o.Maria
Kanagappan and Jotrin Carton, S/o.Thomas, were travelling in the motorcycle
bearing Registration No.TN-74-B-3440 and the motorcycle was driven by Jenil
Shylock and at that time, in their opposite side, in the direction of west to
east, the Government Passenger bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555, was
driven by its driver Sivakumar, S/o.Muthiah, in a high speed, negligently and
without sounding horn and dashed against the motorcycle’s front side and that
Jenil Shylock and Jotrin Carton along with motorcycle were dragged to an extent
of 20 feet towards east and thereafter, the bus stopped etc’.
13. On a perusal of Ex.P.1, F.I.R, it is clear that the Eraniel Police had
registered a case in Cr.No.216 of 2002 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. In Ex.P.3,
the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, in respect of the Motor vehicles involved
in the accident, the Motor Vehicle Inspector inter alia opined that the accident
was not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles.
14. At this stage, this Court points out that it is the duty of the driver
of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555, to slow down his vehicle while
proceeding and turning sidewise and to enter it, only on being aware that he can
do so without endangering the safety of other persons and further it is the
driver of such vehicle who must give way to the traffic on the road.
15. It is to be borne in mind that negligence is sound principle which has
to be applied to different conditions and problems of human life. As a matter
of fact, it is not sufficient for the driver to try to be careful in driving,
but he should further anticipate the common folly of others which he knows by
experience would generally agree.
16. In fact, the principle ‘res ipsa loquitur’ depends upon the nature of
the accident and the attendant circumstances. The principle ‘res ipsa loquitur’
is only a rule of evidence to determine the burden of proof in actions
pertaining to negligence. The said principle has application only when the
nature of the accident and the attendant circumstances would reasonably lead to
the belief that in the absence of negligence, the accident would have occurred
and that the thing which is caused injury is established to have been under the
management and control of the wrong doer.
17. It is relevant to mention that it is for the driver of the offending
vehicle, not merely to say that he had acted carefully, but to rebut that
presumption by proving that there was no negligence on his part even though he
could not prove as to how the accident took place. Moreover, if the driver had
a last opportunity to avoid the accident, the principle ‘res ipso loquitor’ is
applicable and the driver is guilty of rash and negligent driving. Where the
principle of ‘res ipso loquitor’ is attracted, the burden then shifts to the
respondent and the initial onus has to be on the driver to prove that he was
not negligent. However, when the situation speaks of itself, it means
negligence openly and the maxim ‘res ipso loquitor’ would be applicable to it,
in the considered opinion of this Court.
18. As far as the present case is concerned, the complainant, Joseph
Antony Raj (P.W.3), in his evidence has specifically stated that the bus after
hitting the deceased persons, who came in the motorcycle, dragged the motorcycle
to a distance of 20 feet and stopped facing east direction and that since the
bus dragged the motorcycle, the deceased Jenil Shylock has sustained grievous
injuries on his left side head, left knee, right eyebrow, right leg joint and in
other places and that the right side face of Jotrin Carton along with eye, left
leg below joint and his knee portion in entirety and in other places sustained
injuries.
19. Though R.W.1, the driver of the bus, in his evidence has stated that
the person who came in the two wheeler has dashed against his bus on the right
portion, the same is only a self-serving and interested one in view of the
specific evidence of the complainant/P.W.3, who has clearly stated that the bus
bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555 was driven by its driver in a high speed,
negligently and without sounding horn, it came and dashed against the front
right side of the motorcycle etc., and therefore, this Court rejects the
evidence of R.W.1 in this regard and comes to the inevitable conclusion that the
accident has taken place due to the high speed and negligent driving of the bus
bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555 by its driver, R.W.1, Sivakumar and that
the driver of the said bus is cent per cent, squarely responsible for causing
the accident and therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the deceased has
contributed the accident to an extent of 25% is not correct and the point is
answered accordingly.
20. Finding on quantum of compensation in C.M.A.No.75 of 2004 (in
M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002):-
It is to be pointed out that P.W.1/first claimant, Maria Kanagappan, (in
M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002), in his evidence has deposed that his son Jenil Shylock
died in the accident and at the time of his death, he was aged about 22 years
and that he studied ITI Course and that his son, apart from studies, also
evinced interest in sports. It is the further evidence of P.W.1, that he was
working in abroad and he decided to send his son abroad after his son finishing
his studies and that he had taken passport and that his son registered his name
at the Employment Exchange.
21. In Ex.P.2, the certified copy of post-mortem certificate, in respect
of the deceased Jenil Shylock, it is mentioned that the deceased ‘appear to have
died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to liver 16 – 20 hours prior to
post-mortem.’. In Ex.P.2, post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased
Jenil Shylock is mentioned as 20 years. However, in the petition, the age of
the deceased Jenil Shylock has given as 22 years. In Ex.P.4, the driving
licence, in respect of the deceased Jenil Shylock, his date of birth is
mentioned as ‘05.07.1980’. The date of accident is on 22.02.2002. Therefore,
the age of the deceased Jenil Shylock at the time of his death is 21 years 7
months and 17 days and hence, this Court determines the age of the deceased
Jenil Shylock at the time of his death as 22 years.
22. It is pertinent to point out that the Tribunal has determined the
monthly contribution of the deceased Jenil Shylock at Rs.1,500/- p.m, and
therefore, for an year, it has worked out to Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen
Thousand only). The Tribunal has further arrived at a figure of Rs.3,42,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) in regard to the death of Jenil
Shylock towards compensation as per Section 163(A) Second Schedule of Motor
Vehicles Act and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, it
has fixed the compensation at Rs.2,28,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Twenty Eight
Thousand only) and it has also deducted a sum of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven
Thousand only) namely, 1/4th of Rs.2,28,000/- towards 25% contributory
negligence of the deceased Jenil Shylock and has awarded a rounded of sum of
Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) {for the figure of
Rs.1,71,000/-}, payable to the appellants/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002
(C.M.A.No.75 of 2004).
23. It is to be borne in mind that when the Tribunal has arrived at a
figure of Rs.3,42,000/- as total compensation as mentioned in paragraph No.15 of
its award, then, obviously it has adopted a multiplier of 19, to arrive at a
compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 12 X 19 = Rs.3,42,000/-)in the
considered opinion of this Court.
24. Ex.P.6, (series), refers to the certificates obtained by the deceased
Jenil Shylock in respect of games in Pole-vault, Kabadi, Ball-Badminton, Kho-
kho, Provisional National Trade Certificate and the certificate of appreciation
for donating voluntarily one Unit of Blood.
25. Bearing in mind of the fact that the deceased Jenil Shylock with his
qualification in ITI Course, etc., and other proficiency in games as evidenced
by his certificates Ex.P.6 series, produced in this case, this Court also,
taking note of the fact that he has taken passport in his name with a view to go
abroad, fixes his average monthly income of the deceased Jenil Shylock (had he
been alive), at Rs.3,000/- p.m and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his
personal expenses, determines at Rs.2,000/- as monthly dependency. Then, for an
year, it works out to Rs.24,000/-.
26. As a matter of fact, the Second Schedule to Section 163(A) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, refers to the adoption of multiplier of 16 for a person aged
15 years and not exceeding 20 years who died in an accident and likewise,
adoption of multiplier of 17 is mentioned in respect of an individual above 20
years but not exceeding 25 years who died in an accident. Similarly, the said
Schedule speaks of adoption of multiplier of 18, in respect of a person about 25
years but not exceeding 30 years who died in an accident.
27. Therefore, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, is of the view that the proper multiplier of 16 can be adopted which will
serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, adopting a fair and reasonable
multiplier of 16, the compensation amount comes to Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X
12 X 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-) {Rupees Three Lakhs and Eighty Four Thousand only}, to
which amount the appellants/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002 are entitled to
receive from the second respondent/State Transport Corporation.
28. Towards pain and sufferings, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000/-.
This Court grants a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, this
Court grants a sum of Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. Thus, in all, this Court
awards a sum of Rs.3,93,500/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand and Five
Hundred only] {Rs.3,84,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,500/- =
Rs.3,93,500/-} as total compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition till date of payment payable by the second respondent/State
Transport Corporation. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that
the Tribunal has not looked into the overall assessment of the facts and
circumstances of the case in a proper perspective and therefore, a sum of
Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the
lower side.
29. Already the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- along with
interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. If the said
award amount along with interest at 9% p.a, has already been deposited by the
State Transport Corporation, then, the different sum of Rs.2,23,500/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest at 9%
p.a. as enhanced compensation, is directed to be paid by the second
respondent/State Transport Corporation within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
30. The lawyer’s fee is fixed at Rs.10,870/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight
Hundred and Seventy only) by this Court. In regard to the lawyer’s fee, the
different sum of Rs.4,470/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy only)
{Rs.10,870/- – Rs.6,400/- = Rs.4,470/-}, is also directed to be deposited by the
second respondent/State Transport Corporation.
31. Finding on quantum of compensation in C.M.A.No.76 of 2004 (in
M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002):-
P.W.2/first claimant (in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002), Thomas, in his evidence
has stated that his son Jotrin Catron died in an accident and was aged about 21
years at the time of accident and that he was awarded with Diploma in Civil
Engineering and that he completed Auto Cad 2000 course and that he completed the
course in Land Survey.
32. P.W.2, in his further evidence has deposed that his relatives were in
foreign country and therefore he intended to send his son abroad for job and
after his son’s demise, his son received appointment order from Public Works
Department and that his wife had undergone a family planning operation.
33. In Ex.P.7, the certified copy of the post-mortem certificate,
pertaining to Jotrin Catron, his age is mentioned as 20 years. In the claim
petition in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002, the age of the deceased Jotrin Catron is
mentioned as 21 years. In Ex.P.8, passport of the deceased Jotrin Catron, the
date of birth is mentioned as ‘25.07.1981’. Admittedly, the date of accident is
on 22.02.2002. Therefore, this Court determines the age of the deceased Jotrin
Catron at the time of accident as 21 years, relying upon his date of birth as
25.07.1981 as mentioned in Ex.P.8, passport.
34. In Ex.P.9, the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer dated
19.12.2002, the name of the deceased Jotrin Catron is mentioned in Sl.No.8 as
DCE Civil and he has been given the reposting orders at the place ‘Sea Erosion
Prevention Division, Nagercoil’.
35. Ex.P.10, series, refers to Jotrin Catron’s Diploma qualification in
‘Civil Engineering’, his certificate of achievement in Auto Cad 2000,
Certificate in ‘Land and Astronomy Surveying’ Course, and the certificate of
appreciation awarded to him for having donated one Unit of blood on 31.01.2002.
36. It is necessary to point out that the Tribunal has determined the
monthly contribution of the deceased Jotrin Catron at Rs.1,500/- p.m, and
therefore, for an year, it has worked out to Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen
Thousand only). The Tribunal has further arrived at a figure of Rs.3,42,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) in regard to the death of
Jotrin Catron towards compensation as per Section 163(A) Second Schedule of
Motor Vehicles Act and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal
expenses, it has fixed the compensation at Rs.2,28,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and
Twenty Eight Thousand only) and it has also deducted a sum of Rs.57,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand only) namely, 1/4th of Rs.2,28,000/- towards 25%
contributory negligence of the deceased Jotrin Catron and has awarded a rounded
of sum of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) {for the
figure of Rs.1,71,000/-}, payable to the appellants/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.170
of 2002 (C.M.A.No.76 of 2004).
37. It is to be pointed out that when the Tribunal has arrived at a figure
of Rs.3,42,000/- as total compensation as mentioned in paragraph No.18 of its
award, then, obviously it has adopted a multiplier of 19, to fix the total
compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 12 X 19 = Rs.3,42,000/-)in the
considered opinion of this Court.
38. Considering the educational qualifications of the deceased Jotrin
Catron namely, Diploma in Civil Engineering, etc, and taking note of the fact
that he has taken passport in order to go abroad for seeking employment, this
Court fixes his average monthly income (had he been alive) at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- p.m and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, the
same is determined at Rs.2,000/- p.m towards loss of monthly dependency. Then,
for an year, it works out to Rs.24,000/-.
39. In fact, the Second Schedule to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, refers to the adoption of multiplier of 16 for a person aged 15 years and
not exceeding 20 years who died in an accident and likewise, adoption of
multiplier of 17 is mentioned in respect of an individual above 20 years but not
exceeding 25 years who died in an accident. Similarly, the said Schedule speaks
of adoption of multiplier of 18, in respect of a person about 25 years but not
exceeding 30 years who died in an accident.
40. Hence, this Court, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the
case, is of the considered opinion that the proper multiplier of 16 can be
safely adopted which will meet the ends of justice. Resultantly, adopting a
just and reasonable multiplier of 16, the compensation amount comes to
Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-) {Rupees Three Lakhs and
Eighty Four Thousand only}, to which amount the appellants/claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002 are entitled to receive from the second respondent/State
Transport Corporation.
41. Towards pain and sufferings, this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/-.
This Court fixes a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, this
Court grants a sum of Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. Thus, in all, this Court
determines a sum of Rs.3,93,500/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand and
Five Hundred only] {Rs.3,84,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,500/- =
Rs.3,93,500/-} as total compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition till date of payment payable by the second respondent/State
Transport Corporation. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that
the Tribunal has not looked into the overall assessment of the facts and
circumstances of the case in a proper perspective and therefore, a sum of
Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient and on the
lower side.
42. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- along with
interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. If the said
award amount along with interest at 9% p.a, has already been deposited by the
State Transport Corporation, then, the different sum of Rs.2,23,500/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest at 9%
p.a. as enhanced compensation, is directed to be paid by the second
respondent/State Transport Corporation within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
43. The lawyer’s fee is fixed at Rs.10,870/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight
Hundred and Seventy only) by this Court. In regard to the lawyer’s fee, the
different sum of Rs.4,470/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy only)
{Rs.10,870/- – Rs.6,400/- = Rs.4,470/-}, is also directed to be deposited by the
second respondent/State Transport Corporation.
Conclusion:
44. In fine, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in above
terms. Consequently, the award dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.169 and
170 of 2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, stands modified. There shall be no order as
to costs bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case.
rsb
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –
Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil.