IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 2.9.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
C.M.A.No.2710 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Division-I,
Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
vs.
1.G.Karthikeyan,
2.Sasikumar alias G.Kathirvelu,
3.G.Ramachandran,
4.Minor G.Menaka,
5.A.Subramaniam.
(Minor 4th respondent is
represented by guardian
grand mother Pattakkal alias
Periyamma)
(5th respondent is given up) ... Respondents/Petitioners
1 to 4 and 1st respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 30.6.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2025 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge), Coimbatore.
For appellant : Mr.N.Anand
-----
JUDGMENT
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 30.6.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2025 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge), Coimbatore.
2. At the time of admission of the appeal, the only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
3. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant’s transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed.
4. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.4.1995. The deceased Govindaraj, aged 45 years, was walking on the road in front of the Hotal Pushpa, when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the said Govindaraj was ran over and he suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to government hospital where he died on 26.4.1995 in spite of medical treatment. The claim was filed by three sons aged 27 years, 21 years and 18 years and one minor daughter aged 15 years and the mother (age not given) for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as mason.
5. In support of the claim, one of the sons of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Kumar, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. The claimants marked Exs.P-1 to P-6, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. dated 25.4.2005,
Ex.P-2 is the photocopy of Express report,
Ex.P-3 is the certified copy of post-mortem certificate dated 4.5.1995,
Ex.P-4 is the death certificate dated 4.5.1995,
Ex.P-5 is the referred charge-sheet and
Ex.P-6 is the legal heir certificate dated 1.10.2001.
The Driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on behalf of the appellant, respondent before the Tribunal.
6. In so far as the compensation, this issue was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 13 on wards in answer to point No.2. As per post-mortem certificate Ex.P-3, the age of the deceased was taken as 45 years. Ex.P-4 is the death certificate. According to the claimants, the income of the deceased, a mason, was stated as Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal accepted the same. However, a sum of Rs.1,500/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier and fixed the total pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/-). In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 9%:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents
Rs.2,70,000/-
2
For mental agony to all the claimants (Rs.2,500/- each)
Rs. 10,000/-
3
Funeral expenses
Rs. 5,000/-
Total
Rs.2,85,000/-
7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that 15 multiplier adopted in this case is on the higher side. He also states that the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is high as the accident happened in the year 1995. He sought for reduction in the quantum of compensation.
8. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant’s counsel for the following reasons:-
(i) In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the decision of the Division Bench of this court in B.Anandhi vs. – Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) has held that even a coolie will earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. Therefore, considering the occupation of the deceased, a mason, the income can be justified. This commensurate with the living wages and minimum wages during the relevant point of time.
(ii) While determining the pecuniary loss, the Tribunal instead of 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses, has deducted 1/2 the amount, that is to say Rs.1,500/-, as personal expenses. Therefore, the contribution to the family has been greatly reduced.
(iii) In this case, no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the 3 major siblings, one minor daughter and the aged mother. No amount has been granted for transport expenses.
(iv) Even if the multiplier of 15 as per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicle’s Act is said to be marginally higher, the fact that the deduction in the income for personal expenses is more than 1/3 and no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection and for transport expenses, will justify the marginally higher multiplier taken by the Tribunal to determine the compensation.
(v) One other factor which has to be kept in mind in this case is that the accident happened in the year 1995 and the award was passed in June, 2003 and after enormous delay on the part of the appellant, the appeal has been numbered and listed for admission today.
(vi) The appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.
9. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation and the award for all the above said reasons. If the award is interfered by this court, at this point of time, great prejudice will cause to the claimants.
10. The interest granted at 9% stands confirmed, since the accident happened in the year 1995 and the award is of the year 2003.
11. Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant transport corporation prays eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts
To
1.First Additional District Judge,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Coimbatore