IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.770 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M/s.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division, No.37 Mettupalayam road, Coimbatore-641 043. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Viswanathan, 2.V.Radhamani, 3.R.Balasubramaniyan. ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2 and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.2.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Coimbatore. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 28.2.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Coimbatore.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 14.9.2004. The deceased V.Nithiyananthan, a 20 years old student, was travelling in Kawasaki Bajaj 100 Bike. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the two wheeler. In that accident the said Nithiyananthan died on the spot. The father aged 46 years and the mother aged 40 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.
3. In support of the claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Pragadeeswaran, a passenger in the appellant transport corporation bus and also the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the true copy of FIR, dated 14.9.2004,
Ex.A-2 is the copy of charge sheet dated 13.10.2004,
Ex.A-3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Inspection Report
dated 11.9.2004,
Ex.A-4 is the copy of rough sketch dated 14.9.2004,
Ex.A-5 is the college transfer certificate dated 27.9.2004,
Ex.A-6 is the death certificate dated 28.9.2004,
Ex.A-7 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 14.9.2004,
Ex.A-8 is the copy of legal heir certificate dated 1.11.2004 and
Ex.A-9 is the copy of identity card issued by the college.
Mr.Balasubramanian, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. The copy of judgment dated 27.7.2005 passed in C.C.No.250 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore, was marked as Ex.B-1 on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal.
4. Based on the transfer certificate Ex.A-5, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 18 years. Since, the deceased was a student at the time of accident, the Tribunal in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, fixed the income notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Based on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 16 and granted a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 16 = Rs.1,60,000/-) as compensation to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits
Rs.1,60,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the parents on the death of their only son Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs.2,05,000/-
5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in this case happened due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. There is no material placed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation to controvert the finding of the negligence. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and judgment of the criminal court Ex.B-1, on the ground that the criminal court judgment will not bind the Tribunal automatically. Hence, the finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the death and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of death of a 20 years old student is high resulting in excess compensation. He also contended that the sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the parents of the deceased is excessive. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
7. On perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award on the above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 14.9.2004.
(ii) The deceased was 20 years old student at the time of accident. It is stated that he studied CA.
(iii) Since the deceased was a student, the Tribunal in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle’s Act fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Adopting 16 multiplier the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation, which is very low.
(iv) In Manju Devi and another vs. – Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609(SC), the Apex Court has taken the income of the deceased non-earning member as Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting 15 multiplier granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation on the death of the 13 years old student. In the Apex Court’s decision, the accident happened in the year 1999. In paragraph 3, the Apex Court held as follows:-
“3. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000/-”
In view of the Apex Court’s decision, the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- by adopting 16 multiplier for the 20 years old student, a non-earning member, in this case, is not excessive.
(v) The sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the parents on the death of their only son is reasonable as the compensation on the death of the son is very low and the same is confirmed.
(vi) The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards funeral expenses is reasonable and the same is confirmed.
(vii) Considering the above aspects, the total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- is reasonable and does not require any further reduction, as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2007.
8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks’ time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: No. 30.3.2009
Internet:Yes
ts
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Coimbatore.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
ts
Judgment in
C.M.A.No.770 of 2009
30.3.2009