IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.11.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 283 of 2003 and CMP No. 2179 of 2003 ...... The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Salem Division II) Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri.5. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. N. Narayana 2. Minor Ramya 3. Minor Dheepa 4. Minor Maadhu (Respondents 2 to 4 minors rep. by natural guardian and father R1/ N. Narayana) .. Respondents/ Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 29.8.2002 made in MCOP No. 1144 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ist Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran For Respondents : No Appearance JUDGMENT
The Transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 29.8.2002 made in MCOP No. 1144 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ist Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 27.4.2001. The deceased Narasamma , aged 28 years, vegetable and milk vendor, was a passenger in the bus which capsized due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant transport corporation bus driver. In that accident, the said Narasamma died. The husband aged 32 years, minor daughters aged 7 years, and 5 years respectively and minor son aged 3 years are the claimants. They filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
3. In support of the claim petition, the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1. Documents Exs. A1 copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A2 copy of the post mortem certificate were marked. One Ranganathan, driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability to compensate the claimant is not in dispute and the same is confirmed.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased Narassamma at Rs.3,000/- p.m. By adopting 17 multiplier and deducting a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- towards personal expenses, the Tribunal determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- . In all, the following amounts were granted as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits
Rs.4,00,000/-
2
Loss of consortium
Rs. 20,000/-
3 Transport expenses and funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the children Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs.4,55,000/-
6. A plea was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. In this case, though the appeal was admitted on 3.3.2003 and notice was ordered, the respondents have not been served. However, this Court has come to the conclusion that the award is just and reasonable and does not require modification or reduction. Hence, notice to respondents is not pursued. This Court is not inclined to keep the appeal pending any further and hence, the appeal is disposed of on merits.
8. In this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. The accident in this case happened in the year 2001. The deceased mother was 28 years old and she left surviving three young children, who are aged 7,5 and 3 years respectively. She was contributing to the family by way of doing vegetable business and milk vending. Considering her age and that of the children, it is pertinent to note that the loss of pecuniary benefits to the children will be very much affected and they would also lose the love and affection of the mother at the young age.
9. The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:-
(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi vs. – Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995.
(b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. – Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999.
10. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2001. Therefore, the Tribunal should have taken higher income as against Rs.3,000/- taken in the present case. Since the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is marginally low, the higher multiplier adopted by the Tribunal will compensate the lower income taken by the Tribunal in the case of the deceased lady earning member. Further, meager amounts has been granted for loss of consortium to the husband and loss of love and affection to the very small children.
11. Considering all these aspects, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal as also the interest granted at 9% as the accident happened in the year 2001 and the award passed in the year 2002.
12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, CMA No. 2179 of 2003 is also dismissed. No costs.
13. It is stated that as per the interim direction of this Court dated 3.3.2003, entire award amount has been deposited. The claimants are entitled to receive the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
20.11.2008
ra
Index: /No
Internet: yes
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Ist Additional District Judge),
Krishnagiri.
R. SUDHAKAR,J.,
CMA No. 283 of 2003
Date: 20.11.2008