IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.11.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3329 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 ............ The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram. .. Appellant/ respondent Vs. 1. Sahunthala 2. Indira 3. Perunarappan 4. Lakshmi 5. Poongavanam ... respondents/ petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 22.11.2005 in MCOP No. 1096 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr. N. Anand -------- JUDGMENT
Transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.11.2005 in MCOP No. 1096 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident, in this case, happened on 28.9.1996. The deceased Periapappa, aged 45 years, said to be an agricultural coolie, was travelling as a passenger in the bus. Due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the transport corporation bus, the deceased was thrown out of the bus and she died. The husband aged 50 years, three daughters aged 26 years, and 24 years and 12 years respectively, son aged 14 years, another daughter age not known, have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation stating that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/- p.m.
3. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who caused the accident, and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The issue relating to compensation was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph No.8 in answer to point No.2. As per Ex.A3, post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was taken as 45 years. Based on the oral evidence of the parties and also considering the fact that the deceased was an agricultural coolie, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.2,500/-p.m. Out of which, a sum of Rs.833/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.1,667/- p.m. The Tribunal by adopting 15 multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.3,00,060/- (Rs.1667/- x 12 x 15 = and Rs.3,00,060/-) In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of pecuniary benefits
Rs. 3,00,060/-
2 Loss of love and affection to the children Rs. 25,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,30,060/-
5. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation stating that higher multiplier has been adopted by the Tribunal. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons.
6. The accident in this case happened in the year 1996. The claim petition was filed in the year 1999 and the award was passed on 22.11.2005. After a long delay, the appeal is now numbered and listed for admission. More than 12 years have passed since the date of the death of the deceased. The claimants are yet to receive the compensation. Further, the monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs.2,500/- only whereas during the relevant period, the income of the agricultural coolie will be much more. Meager amount of Rs.5,000/- each was granted for loss of love and affection to the children viz. three daughters and one son. It is also on record that the father died pending the claim petition. The claimants are now orphans.
7. The increase in cost of living, price rise and the value of the money at present has to be considered. Further the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. for the accident happened in the year 1996 since the award was passed in the year 2005 is low, This Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of compensation any further.
8. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks six weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
4.11.2008
ra
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.
R. SUDHAKAR,J.,
CMA No. 3329 of 2008
Date: 4.11.2008