BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20/06/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.3338 of 2003 and C.M.P.(MD).No.6055 of 2004 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Division I) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Bye Pass Road, Madurai. ... Appellant Vs 1.C.Saraswathi 2.C.Senthilnathan 3.C.Sasidharan 4.State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu DivisionI) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. 5.Muthukrishnan (R-5 given up) ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.557/99 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur. !For Appellant .. Mr.D.Sivaraman For Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil ^For RR-1 to 3 .. Mr.K.Kannan For 4th Respondent .. No Appearance :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and award
dated 28.06.2000 passed in M.C.O.P.No.557/1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur by which a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- has
been awarded as compensation to the claimants, the dependants and legal heirs of
the deceased Chithambaram, who died in an accident that took place on
24.03.1996.
2. The owner of the offending vehicle, namely the appellant Transport
Corporation resisted the claim both on the question of negligence as well as
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants.
3. The Tribunal, after enquiry, held that the accident was the result of
the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant Transport
Corporation and mulcted the liability to pay compensation on the appellant.
Taking the age of the deceased to be 41 years as on the date of accident and
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, the Tribunal applied multiplier
’15’ and awarded a total sum of Rs.10,90,000/- as compensation. The said amount
was directed to be paid by the appellant together with an interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of claim till realisation.
4. The correctness of the assessment of compensation is put in issue in
this appeal by the appellant Transport Corporation.
5. We have heard the submissions made by Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel
for the appellant and also by Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel for respondents 1 to
3.
6. Admittedly, it is a case of collision of two vehicles. One belonging to
the appellant, namely the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai
Division-I and the other belonging to the fourth respondent, namely the State
Express Trnasport Corporation (Tamil Nadu Division-I), Chennai. Even though the
appeal has been preferred challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the
question of negligence also, the learned counsel for the appellant has not
canvassed anything regarding the challenge made to the award on the question of
negligence. The learned counsel fairly conceded that the finding of the Tribunal
regarding the question of negligence can be confirmed. Hence there is no need
to traverse the pleading and evidence regarding the said aspect and the finding
of the Tribunal holding the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant
Transport Corporation responsible for the accident is hereby confirmed.
7. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it is the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in
fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- whereas P.W.1, the wife
of the deceased, in her evidence, admitted that actually no income tax was paid
during the life time of her husband. It is not in dispute that the deceased was
aged about 41 years as on the date of his death and that he was doing business
as partner in totally 9 partnership firms. Documents have been produced to
evidence the investment of a total amount of Rs.70,000/- in 3 partnership firms.
Of course documents regarding investment in other partnership firms have not
been produced on the side of the claimants. But it is a fact not in dispute that
the deceased was a partner in totally 9 partnership firms. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant, the income derived from the partnership
business cannot be taken to be the earning of the deceased which alone shall be
taken into account for deciding the loss of dependency occasioned to the
claimants. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
that the investment made by the deceased in the said partnership firms are
intact and the same income would have been derived by the claimants even after
the death of the deceased.
8. This Court applied its mind to the above said contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that though the amounts
invested in the partnership firms would have been kept intact even after the
death of the deceased, the entire income derived from the partnership firms
cannot be treated as either interest or mere dividend paid to the deceased. On
the other hand, even a partner who does not take part in the day-to-day
activities of the firm will be paid a remuneration for attending the meeting. If
such an aspect is taken into account, the remuneration paid to the deceased in
seven partnership firms can be taken at the minimum of Rs.1,000/- per firm. In
case of two partnership firms in which a lesser amount would have been invested,
we can take it as Rs.500/- per month. If such a calculation is made, then the
total earnings of the deceased as on his date of death can be easily arrived at
Rs.8,000/-. Hence, we fix the monthly earnings of the deceased at the time of
his death at Rs.8,000/- per month.
9. Regarding the multiplier selected by the Tribunal, we do not find any
infirmity or discrepancy, as the same is in accordance with the second schedule
attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The only additional item awarded as
compensation by the Tribunal is Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection
as against which, the appellant does not have any grievance. Therefore, we are
of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met by reducing the
compensation for loss of dependency based on the above said assessment of
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- as fixed by
the Tribunal. Consequently, the annual income is fixed at Rs.8,000 x 12 =
Rs.96,000/-. Deducting Rs.32,000/- representing 1/3rd of the above said amount,
the loss of annual dependancy and benefits is assessed at Rs.64,000/-.
Multiplying the same by the selected multiplier ’15’, the compensation for loss
of dependancy and benefit is fixed at Rs.9,60,000/-. Adding Rs.10,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal as compensation for loss of love and affection, the total amount
of compensation to which the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled is fixed at
Rs.9,70,000/-.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.9,70,000/- from
Rs.10,90,000/-. Subject to the above said modification, the award of the
Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other respects. Consequently the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge),
Karur.