IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2006
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM
C.M.A.(NPD)No.231933 of 2006
& MP No.1 of 2006
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Coimbatore. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Mayilathal
2.Rukmani
3.Santhamani
4.Vimala
5.Angamuthu .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.02.2006 made in MACTOP No.656 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Babu
For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Thangavel
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur in MACTOP No.656 of 2003 dated 15.02.2006, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore, has filed the present appeal.
2. In respect of the death of one Mandhiri Naicker in a road accident that took place on 25.04.2003, the respondents herein prayed for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
3. The respondents are represented by counsel.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the deceased met with an accident due to his own fault by coming out of the bus, when the bus was in motion. Though the driver was examined as RW1, the Tribunal preferred to accept the evidence of the eye witness, viz., PW1. It is not in dispute that it was PW1, who made a complaint to the police, which has been marked as Ex.P1. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, though PW1 has stated in the departmental enquiry that he was exonerated, no material was placed in support of his stand. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.
6. Coming to the quantum, it is seen from Ex.P3, Legal Heirship Certificate that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. The post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P4. The Death certificate has been marked as Ex.P2. It is seen from Ex.P6 that the deceased is an agriculturist and he uses to sell vegetables at “Uzhavar Santhai” (cHth; re;ij). The son of the deceased was examined as PW3. He has deposed about the avocation and the income of the deceased. Taking note of the age of the deceased as mentioned in the claim petition as well as the post-mortem certificate, the Tribunal determined his age as 65 and applied a multiplier of 5. The Tribunal is also justified in arriving at a conclusion that it would be possible for the deceased to earn a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, fixed the contribution to the family at Rs.24,000/- per year and by applying the multiplier of 5, fixed the loss of income to the family at Rs.1,20,000/- and after adding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the wife and for the children/claimants 2 to 5, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- each, totalling Rs.20,000/- and further added a sum of Rs.5.000/- towards the funeral expenses and thus fixed the total compensation at Rs.1,55,000/-. Considering the materials placed, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no ground for interference. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2006 is also dismissed.
raa
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.V,
Coimbatore at Tiruppur.
2. The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
CMA NPD No.2319 of 2006
