T.K.Narayanan vs The Managing Director on 4 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED   04.02.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

C.M.A. NOS.3749 AND 2823 OF 2004

C.M.A. NO.3749 OF 2004

1.T.K.Narayanan
2.N.Revathy							..	Appellants				
versus

The Managing Director
Metro Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallvan Salai
Chennai  600 002.						..	Respondent



C.M.A. NO.2823 OF 2004
The Managing Director
Metro Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallvan Salai
Chennai  600 002.						..	Appellant	
versus

1.T.K.Narayanan
2.Minor N.Revathi						..	Respondents


	Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.3146 of 2001 dated 21.11.2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai.

For Appellants in C.M.A.No.3749/2004 and
      Respondents in C.M.A.No.2823/2004		: Mr.J.Mahalingam


For Respondent in C.M.A.No.3749/2004and
      Appellant in C.M.A.No.2823/2004			: Mr.A.Babu


* * * * *

C O M M O N  J U D G M E N T
(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY M.M.SUNDRESH, J)

		Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Fast Track Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3146 of 2001 fixing the compensation at Rs.10,37,000/- both the claimants as well as the respondent have preferred respective appeals. The appeal filed by the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.3146 of 2001 in C.M.A.No.2823 of 2004 is taken as a typical case and the parties arrayed therein are taken up in the same manner in both cases for better appreciation.

		2.The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
		i.The deceased Shanthi aged about 34 years was working as stenographer cum typist and was travelling at about 4.00p.m. as a pillion rider driven by her husband in Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TH-22-H-9816 on 31.08.1999. While the deceased was travelling along with her husband who is the first respondent herein, the bus owned by the appellant came from south to north and dashed against the vehicle at Medavakkam Tank Road causing death. 
		ii.Claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation, the claimants namely the respondents 1 and 2 being the husband and the minor daughter of the deceased have filed M.C.O.P.No.3146 of 2001. The Court below awarded a sum of Rs.10,37,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal and seeking  enhanced compensation, the respondents 1 and 2 being the claimants have filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.3749 of 2004.

		3.It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.27,000/- as monthly salary and she was working at Petron Emirates Contracting Company at the time of the accident. The respondents have filed Ex.A-12, A-13 and A-16 to show that the deceased was working with the above said concern and receiving the salary of Rs.27,000/-. The first respondent has been examined as PW-1. PW-1 had informed that the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and receiving a salary of 2,250 dirhams which is equivalent to a sum of Rs.27,000/- at the time of the accident. It is further stated that the deceased is a qualified stenographer and she has also obtained a Diploma in Computer Education. Ex.A-7 has been marked to show that the deceased had completed Diploma in Computer Education. Ex.A-8 to A-10 are the documents to show that the deceased was working in Calcutta based Company and thereafter she resigned in view of the subsequent job obtained with Petron Emirates Contracting Company.

		4.The Court below after consideration of the documents produced by the respondents 1 and 2 has fixed the salary at Rs.7,000/-, by holding that the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.27,000/- cannot be accepted, since she was working only as a stenographer. Therefore the Court below has fixed a salary at Rs.7,000/- and made a deduction of 1/3rd and thereafter adopted the Multiplier of 17 by fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,52,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards Funeral Expenses, another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards  Transport Expenses and for the loss of consortium a sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the 2nd respondent. In total the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.10,37,000/- to the apportioned between the respondents 1 and 2 as Rs.5,37,000/- respectively.


		5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without any basis the Tribunal has fixed the income. According to the learned counsel the respondents 1 and 2 have not proved about the income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by taking the age of the deceased as 34 years and wrongly fixed the Multiplier as 17. The learned counsel submitted that even as per the evidence of PW-1 the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was only 36 years and therefore the Multiplier of 16 alone ought to have been adopted as per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

		6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has not specifically rejected Ex.A-16. Therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the salary of the deceased is only Rs.7,000/- as against the salary certificate produced by the respondents/claimants in Ex.A-16. The learned counsel further submitted that towards the loss of love and affection only a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded, since the 2nd respondent admittedly was a minor at the time of the accident.
		7.We have heard Mr,A.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr.J.Mahalingam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
		8.The Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the salary at Rs.7,000/- per month of the deceased. The said finding has no factual basis. However the salary of the deceased at Rs.27,000/- cannot be taken into consideration, since there was no deduction made towards the income tax payable on the salary. Therefore on a consideration of the above said fact, we find that in the present case a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as a salary of the deceased would be just and reasonable. The Tribunal has also made an error in fixing the age of the deceased at 34 years and applying the Multiplier of 17. Out of the said sum, we also deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and fix the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also committed an error in fixing the age of the deceased at 34 years which is contrary to the evidence of PW-1 himself. In view of the said mistake, the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the Multiplier of 17 instead of applying the Multiplier of 16. Therefore we adopt the Multiplier of 16 in the present case on hand and calculate the loss of dependency at Rs.15,36,000/-.
		9.In so far as the conventional heads of compensation is concerned, the same is fixed in the following manner:
		Loss of dependency 		..	Rs.15,36,000/-
		Transport Expenses			..	Rs.      5,000/-
		Funeral Expenses			..	Rs.      5,000/-
		Loss of Consortium			..	Rs.    50,000/-
		Loss of Love and Affection	..	Rs.    50,000/-  
				Total				Rs.16,46,000/-

		10.Hence a sum of Rs.16,46,000/- is arrived at as the compensation payable to the respondents 1 and 2 and the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced by fixing the compensation at Rs.16,46,000/-. In so far as the amount payable to the share of the minor/2nd respondent is concerned, the said amount is directed to be deposited in any Nationalised Bank renewable once in three years till she attain majority. The 1st respondent is also permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in six months. We also confirm the order of the Tribunal in so far as the interest fixed at the rate of 9%. It is stated that already the appellant Corporation has deposited the amount of compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. Hence the 1st claimant is directed to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount and 50% of the amount payable to the minor claimant is directed to be invested in any Nationalised Bank. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3146 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Fast Track Court, Chennai within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is directed to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to him and the balance amount payable to the minor claimant is directed to be invested in any Nationalised Bank renewable once in three years till she attains majority.

		11.Hence C.M.A.No.3749 of 2004 is allowed in part by fixing the compensation to the appellants for a sum of Rs.16,46,000/- with 9% interest and consequently C.M.A.No.2823 of 2004 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

							(R.B.I.,J.)            (M.M.S.,J.)
								      04.02.2010
Index		: Yes 
Internet	: Yes 

sri


















To

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 
III Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai.



R.BANUMATHI, J.

AND
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

sri

C.M.A. NOS.3749 AND
2823 OF 2004

04.02.2010