BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A. No.220 of 2001 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai - Division -I) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 625 010. .. Appellants Vs 1.Tmt.Sudha 2.Minor Sindhiyadevi (Rep. by her mother and natural guardian next friend Sudha the 1st respondent) 3.Tamil Nadu State Express Corporation (Tamil Nadu Division -I) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai. .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.556 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur. !For Appellant ... Mr.D.Sivaraman for M/s.Rajinish Pathiyil ^For Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent No.3 ... No appearance :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated
05.07.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.556 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 05.07.2000,
to a tune of Rs.8,26,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs and Twentysix Thousand Only) on
the following sub-heads:
(i) For Loss of Earning - Rs.8,16,000.00 (ii) For Loss of Consortium and For Love and affection - Rs. 10,000.00 -------------- Total - Rs.8,26,000.00 --------------
3. The warp and woof of the grounds of appeal is to the effect that the
Tribunal simply had chosen the monthly income of the deceased in a sum of
Rs.6,000/-, even though Ex.P14 would speak to the effect that his gross salary
was Rs.4557.75 per month and that multiplier 17 chosen was on the higher side.
4. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
examined and Exs.P.1 to 14 and there is no oral or documentary evidence on the
side of the respondents.
5. Point for consideration is as to whether the Compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper?
6.Point: The Tribunal was not justified in simply assuming and presuming
as though the deceased’s monthly income could have been Rs.6,000/- and the
multiplier 17 chosen was also on the higher side. Whereas the learned counsel
for the claimants reflecting the cri de coeur of the claimants would advance his
argument that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.
7. Indubitably the facts are to the effect that the deceased died at the
age of 33, while working under the Transport Corporation as Computer Supervisor;
he was holding B.Sc., P.G. Dip. C.A. qualifications and he had future prospects
also; taking into consideration all those salient features the Tribunal properly
and appositely assessed the gross monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-
which warrants no interference, by any standard. Out of Rs.6,000/- a sum of
Rs.2,000/- was deducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have
incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive, irrespective of the fact
whether he lead the life of a Bohemian or that of a Spartan.
8. The multiplier 17 chosen is in concinnity with the Second Schedule
appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. While holding so, I am fully aware of the
fact that the multiplier as found set out in the second schedule need not be
adhered to in all cases blindly. But in this case the wife and child are the
claimants and they are entitled to lead the life in commensurate with the the
status of the deceased who had technical qualifications. As such unless
multiplier 17 is chosen, a substantial compensation could not be arrived at.
Hence, the multiplier 17 chosen does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the
loss of dependency assessed at Rs.8,16,000/- should be left unaltered. Towards
loss of consortium and loss of love and affection totally a sum of Rs.10,000/-
only was awarded and that requires no interference. Obviously under other
justifiable sub-heads no compensation was awarded in view of the fact that the
future prospects of the deceased was taken into account, while choosing the
multiplicand. As such there is no merits in the appeal.
9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
sj
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(The Principal District Judge),
Karur.