BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.1218 of 2000 Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (coimbatore Division II) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Chennimalai Road, Erode - 2. .. Appellant Vs 1.Govindarajan 2.Nagarathinam 3.S.Gopinath 4.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Contonment, Trichy .. Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 29.06.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. !For Appellant ... Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil ^For RR1 and 2 ... Mr.A.Saravanan :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated
29.06.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 29.06.1999 awarded compensation to a
tune of Rs.2,74,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy four thousand and sixty
only) under the following sub-heads:
For loss of income -Rs.2,72,000/-
For funeral expenses -Rs. 2,000/-
————–
Total -Rs.2,74,000/-
————–
4. During arguments, it transpired that the challenge in this appeal is
only relating to the quantum of compensation.
5. According to the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, the
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and
seventy four thousand and sixty only), even though the claimants are the parents
of the deceased unmarried son.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ‘just
compensation’?
7. On point:
The learned counsel for the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his
arguments to the effect that the Tribunal simply had chosen the multiplier 17,
even though the claimants are the parents, aged about 59 and 48 respectively,
whereas the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the parents are
aged about 50 and 48 only; even though the multiplier 17 chosen might appear to
be on the higher side, nevertheless the Tribunal has chosen the multiplicand as
Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only), which is very low by any standard.
8. The Tribunal gave a finding to the effect that the deceased at the time
of his death, was running an egg shop. No doubt, the Tribunal was constrained
to give such a finding in the absence of evidence, whereas the learned counsel
for the claimants would submit that before the Tribunal voluminous documents
were filed as found set out in the list of documents to prove that the deceased
was doing egg business.
9. It is common knowledge that legal representative the deceased, egg shop
owner, might not be able to prove precisely the actual income of the egg shop
owner and as such some amount of guess work is contemplated. However, it is a
trite proposition of law that the entire estimation of compensation should not
be based on mere guestimation, but it should be on some solid grounds. Here,
the factual aspect of the case would reveal that the accident occurred while the
deceased was riding his vehicle with his servant as pillion rider. In fact,
both of them died in the accident.
10. Citing the very nature of the accident, the learned counsel for the
claimants would develop his argument to the effect that the very fact of the
deceased had a sales boy in his egg shop, would connote and denote that he was
having sufficient income as otherwise he might not have had the financial
wherewithal to engage a servant to sell eggs. I could see considerable force in
that submission. Accordingly, if viewed certainly the deceased egg shop owner
might have earned somewhat more than a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and
five hundred only) per month, but less than Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand
only) per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards the expenditure which the
deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive
irrespective of the fact whether the deceased lead the life of a Bohemian or
that of a Spartan, the monthly contribution to his parents would have been more
than what the Tribunal assessed. However, in such a case the proper multiplier
would be 11 only. If accordingly, the compensation under the caption loss of
income/ dependency the quantum would more or less remain at the same level as
assessed by the Tribunal itself.
11. Furthermore, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the
caption loss of love and affection as well as transport expenses. If
compensation is assessed and awarded, then certainly it would not be less than
the total compensation arrived at by the tribunal and accordingly there is no
merit in this appeal.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the
award of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.
smn
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
the Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.