IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3619 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Divn-III, Coimbatore ... Appellant vs. 1.Smt.Lurdu Mary 2.A.Sahaya Selvi Mary 3.Soundararajan R3 given up. ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 13.11.2006 passed in MACTOP.NO.829 of 2005 dated 13.11.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Additional District Judge, Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C. Act, Coimbatore. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For respondent No.1 : Mr.V.Thillaisamy ----- JUDGMENT
The State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 13.11.2006 passed in MACTOP.NO.829 of 2005 dated 13.11.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Additional District Judge, Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C. Act, Coimbatore.
2.It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 28.2.2005. T.Antoni Raj, aged about 22 years, a Welder by profession, was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle. The transport Corporation bus coming from the opposite direction, hit the motor cycle and in that accident, the said Antoni Raj was thrown out of the vehicle. He sustained grievous head injury. He was admitted to General Hospital, Ooty where he was declared dead. The mother aged 52 years and sister aged 18 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on the death of Antoni Raj stating that he was a bachelor and he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month.
3. In support of the claim, the mother was examined as PW1, one Albert, the eye witness was examined as PW2 and Satheesh Kumar, the employer of the deceased was examined as PW3. Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is the Certified copy of Rough Sketch, Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, Ex.P.4 is the Postmortem certificate copy, Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P.6 is the legal heir ship certificate Ex.P.7 is the Ration Card of the petitioner., Ex.P.8 is the Salary certificate of the deceased. On behalf of the appellant Transport Corporation, first respondent before Tribunal one Mr.R.Soundararajan was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.
4. The Tribunal, in this case based on the evidence of PW3, who is the Proprietor of Team Engineering Limited, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m. and the annual income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- and after deducting one third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to dependents at Rs.20,000/-. The age of the mother was 52 years old. The Tribunal, based on the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, applied 11 Multilpier and fixed the total pecuniary loss at Rs.2,20,000/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with 7.5% interest:
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of income
Rs. 2,20,000-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs.2,24,500/-
5. In appeal, the only contention riased by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. The finding of negligence and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. As far as the compensation is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the total compensation for the following reasons:
The deceased admittedly is a bachelor earning member. The accident in this case happened in the year 2005,the income of the deceased has been fixed at Rs.2,500/- as against Rs.3,000/- claimed as per EX.P.8 salary certificate supported by the evidence of PW3, the employer. In fact, the Tribunal should have accepted this document and the evidence of PW3 to fix the income as claimed. The Tribunal has taken Multiplier of 11 on the basis of age of the mother. The multiplier can be justified in view of the Apex Court decision in Bijoy Kumar Dugar – vs. – Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242.
7. No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the mother and the 18 year old sister. Considering all these aspects, the award of the Tribunal does not require further reduction, as also the interest at 7.5%, as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and award passed in 2006.
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. There will be no order as to costs. The appellant seeks for eight weeks’ time to deposit the entire amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal.
VJY
To
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Additional District Judge, Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C. Act,
Coimbatore