IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12.11. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3478 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, VillupuramDivision-II Limited, Vellore-9 .. Appellant Vs. 1 . Kannagi 2. R.Rajasekar 3. R.Chandrasekar (Minor) 4. R.Sobhana (Minor) .. respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 27.04.2007 in MCOP No. 603 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,( Sub court) Tirupattur, Vellore District. . . . For Appellant : Mr. Ramesh For respondents : Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman . . . JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 27.04.2007 in MCOP No. 603 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,( Sub court) Tirupattur, Vellore District.
2. This is a case of fatal accident. the accident happened on 21.10.2005. The deceased Rathinam, a Grama sevak in Kodumampalli village, Tirupattur taluk, was riding the motor cycle when the said vehicle was hit by the bus bearing registration No.TN 23 N 0848, belonging to the appellant, Transport Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The said Rathinam was thrown out of the vehicle and run over by the bus and he died on the spot. The wife aged about 37 years, one Major son aged about 20 years, one minor son aged about 17 years and a minor daughter aged about 16 years have filed a petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- stating that the deceased was a Grama sevak in Block Development Office, Kodumampalli village and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Manoharan was examined as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one Govindaraj was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was let in by the respondents before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly, the First Information Report and the statement of the eye witness, came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant- Transport Corporation bus and the said finding of the Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In any event, no material has been placed to the contrary. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
5. As regards the compensation, the same was decided by the Tribunal in para 7. As per the Post Mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed as 47 years. As far as the income is concerned, under Ex.A.4, the income of the deceased was stated to be Rs.9,298/ per month. The statement of the income furnished under Ex.A.4 was not disputed by the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal and accordingly, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.9,298/- per month, of which 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family was taken as Rs.6,199/ per month and Rs.74, 388/- per annum. The Tribunal adopted 13 multiplier since the deceased was 47 years old at the time of the accident and he had 11 years of service and even as per the Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier will be 13. The total pecuniary loss to the dependents was fixed at Rs.74,388 X 13 = 9,67,044/- The Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5 %
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary loss
Rs. 9,67,044/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- 3 Love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 4 Loss of expectation Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 10,12,044/-
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation stating that the Tribunal has taken higher multiplier of 13 and the compensation on this head is higher and the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of expectation of life is not justified. He pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Kothandaraman stated that the income of the deceased has been properly fixed as per Ex.A.4. The multiplier applicable to this case as per Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act is 13. The deceased has more than 11 years of service and the possibility of getting higher income should also be considered. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier. He stated that no amount has been granted for funeral expenses and transport expenses and meagre amount has been granted for loss of love and affection for three children on the death of their father. He therefore, justified the quanum of compensation.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:
(a) The accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The deceased is a Gramasevak. He was 47 years old at the time of the accident. The income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is not in dispute. Considering the future prospects and also taking into consideration the Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal adopted 13 multiplier and accordingly, granted the compensation for pecuniary loss to the dependents. The total compensation in this head is just and reasonable.
(b) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, no amount has been granted for funeral expenses and transport expenses. The amount granted to the three children towards loss of love and affection on the death of the father in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each is very meagre.
Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted on the head of loss of expectation of life can be adjusted on the head of loss of love and affection to the three children and also for funeral and transport expenses. The total compensation in a sum of Rs.10,12,044/- does not require further reduction.
( c ) The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed as the accident happened in the year 2005 and award was passed in the year 2007.
9. Finding no merits, the appeal is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
PAL
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court,
Thirupathur