In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Date : 10..11..2008
Coram :
The Honble Mr. Justice V. Periyakaruppiah
C.M.A. No: 2594 of 2003
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.
(Coimbatore Division-I) Ltd.
Coimbatore. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. Tmt. Suppathal ( died ) **
Door No: 6/9, Anna Nagar,
Layout No: 11,
Sowripalayam Road,
Ramanathapuram Post,
Coimbatore 641 045.
2. A. Shanmugam,
Door No: 6/9, Anna Nagar
Layout No: II,
Sowripalayam Road,
Ramanathapuram Post,
Coimbatore 641 045. ... Respondents
** ( 2nd respondent was ordered to be recorded
as legal representative of the deceased
1st respondent vide memo dt. 29.10.2008)
.. .. ..
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2002 made in M.C.O.P. No: 313 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court I, Coimbatore, and praying to set aside the same.
For appellant : Ms. S. Geetha
For 2nd respondent : Mr. A.V. Vijayaraghavan
.. .. ..
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the award passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P. No: 313 of 1997 dated 26.07.2002 preferred by the Transport Corporation in awarding a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with subsequent interest and costs in favour of the claimant before the lower Court. The 1st respondent claimant died during the pendency of this appeal and the second claimant was recorded as L.R. of the 1st claimant.
2. The brief facts submitted by both the parties before the lower Court are as follows :
” (i) On 07.05.1996, at 8.00 a.m. in the morning one M.Arunachala Gounder was proceeding in his cycle at the Trichy main road, near Coimbatore Ramanathapuram Government Girls High School, the bus bearing registration No: TN 37 N 0001, came even without any horn, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle. On the impact, Arunachala Gounder was thrown out of the cycle and he fell before the bus with injuries on his head, legs and hip and died on the spot. The deceased Arunachala Gounder was hale and healthy at the time of the accident; he was 55 years old; he was engaged in milk vending business with the help of his own cattle and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. 1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd claimant is the son of the deceased Arunachala Gounder. The 2nd claimant met with an accident 15 years back and is bedridden. The minor children of the 2nd claimant is also depending on the income of the deceased Arunachala Gounder and hence, because of the death of Arunachala Gounder, the whole family is on the streets. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- is payable by the respondents to the claimants.
(ii) On 07.05.1996 the bus bearing registration No: TN 37 N 0001 was driven by its driver slowly following all the rules and regulations; that at 7.55 a.m. when the bus was nearing Ramanathapuram bus stop, a moped which was coming in the opposite direction came in a wrong way; that when the moped came on the right side of the bus, the passengers inside the bus shouted by which the cyclist, out of panic, stopped the cycle and fell on the crushed stones; that the accident was not caused on account of the respondent or its driver but due to the action of the driver of the moped and therefore, he alone should be held responsible for the accident. It is also the case of the respondents that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased and also their eligibility to receive compensation on various heads as claimed by them.”
3. The lower Court had, after appraising the evidence adduced before it, come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum. Against the said award passed by the lower Court, the transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the deceased was responsible for the accident and he had fallen down on the blue metal heaped on the side of the road on seeing the bus coming on his side and sustained injuries and he died due to the said injuries and the bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation did not hit against him. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. He would further submit in his argument that the compensation calculated after fixing a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards monthly dependency of the claimants over the income of the deceased was on the higher side and the multiplier fixed at 11 was also on the higher side, for a man aged 55 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the compensation should have been modified in such a manner and a justifiable compensation may be awarded to the claimant. Therefore, he would request the Court for allowing the appeal either after setting aside or modifying the award.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent / claimants would submit in his argument that the 1st claimant is the wife of the deceased person and the 2nd claimant is the disabled son and, therefore, both the claimants were solely depending upon the deceased person and now the 1st claimant is also dead. The disabled son, 2nd claimant, alone is logging for the remaining the compensation and he has no separate income and the assessment of the compensation by the lower Court is perfectly right and in accordance with law. He would further submit that the evidence adduced before the lower Court would go a long way to show that the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation was the cause for the accident. It is not correct to say that the deceased fell down on the heaped blue metal and sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, he would request the Court to uphold the compensation fixed by the lower Court and the award passed by the lower Court may be confirmed and the appeal be dismissed.
6. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides. On a careful perusal of the judgment passed by the lower Court, it is clear that it had come to the conclusion of fixing the responsibility for the accident on the driver of the bus after carefully going through the evidence produced before it. The eye witnesses evidence would go to show that the bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation had hit against the deceased person who was going on the cycle on his left side of the road. Therefore, the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of its bus was not responsible for the accident could not be sustained. The finding of the lower Court that the appellant transport Corporation is liable to compensate the claimant is perfectly correct.
7. Coming to the quantum of compensation fixed, we could see that the evidence produced by the lower Court would show that the deceased person was the father of the 2nd claimant and the husband of the 1st claimant. The 2nd claimant was a disabled person and was depending solely on the income of the deceased person. The deceased person was earning his livelihood by vending milk and was maintaining his family. As he was looking after the claimants, the fixation of the family dependency for a month at Rs.2,500/- is quite justifiable for a person who is said to have been earning his livelihood through milk vending. Therefore, the monthly dependency of Rs.2,500/- after deducing a sum of Rs.500/- for the maintenance of the deceased person is quite sustainable. Similarly, the fixation of multiplier for the person who is aged 55 years at 11 is also in accordance with law. The calculations made by the lower Court for the compensation for loss of life of the deceased person at Rs.3,30,000/- is perfectly alright. The lower Court had also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the loss of consortium to the 1st claimant; a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the 2nd claimant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The awarding of compensation for the loss of love and affection could have been done at a sum of Rs.10,000/-. But, however, the lower Court had fixed it at Rs.5,000/- against which the claimant has not preferred any appeal or cross appeal in this appeal. Therefore, the total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- payable for the loss of life of the deceased Arunachala Gounder is sustainable and there is no reason for interfering with the decision reached by the lower Court. The award of interest at 9% per annum on the same is also quiet correct. In view of the subsequent event that the 1st claimant / 1st respondent died leaving the 2nd claimant (2nd respondent) as the sole legal heir, the entire compensation awarded by the lower Court less already received by the claimant is payable to the second claimant / second respondent. The total compensation amount was said to have been deposited before the lower Court. The 2nd claimant is entitled to withdraw the said sum less the amount already withdrawn by the claimants as per the earlier order of this Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly with costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gp
To
The Presiding Officer,
Additional District Court,
Fast Track Court I,
Coimbatore