IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.4.2009 CORAM:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 778 of 2009 .....
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri-5. .. Appellant/ Petitioner Vs.
1.Muthuvei
2.Rajeswari
3. Minor Kaveri
4. Minor Valliyammal
5. Kullammal
6. Kuriyan @ Jadaiyan .. Respondents/respondents Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 29.7.2008 made in MCOP No. 216 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge) Krishnagiri.
The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 9.7.2008 made in MCOP No. 216 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge) Krishnagiri.
2. The accident in this case happened on 7.6.2004. The deceased Poongavanam, 44 years, self-employed , fell down from the bus driven in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died. The wife aged 42 years, daughters aged 22 years, 14 years respectively, minor son aged 16 years, mother aged 63 years and father aged 65 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was engaged in the business of selling mango, coconut and milk vending.
3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. Documents Exs.P1, xerox copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.P2, xerox copy of the post mortem certificate were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
5. The Tribunal in this case, based on the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents Exs. P1 and P2 and also taking into consideration the nature of employment, age of the deceased fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and by adopting 13 multiplier granted a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- as pecuniary loss. The Tribunal also granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount 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. 3,12,000/-
2 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to other claimants Rs. 25,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 2,500/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 3,67,000/-
6. In appeal, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the interest at 9% granted by the Tribunal is excessive.
7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal for the reason that though the income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.7,000/- p.m., considering the date of the accident i.e. on 7.6.2004 and the nature of employment of the deceased, the income of the deceased should have been fixed much higher. In this regard, it will be useful to refer the following two decisions.
(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.
8. 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. In such event, the income of the deceased, in this case, should have been fixed much higher than what has been fixed by the Tribunal. Therefore, even if the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is marginally higher that will compensate the shortfall in the total compensation granted to the claimants. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
01.4.2009 ra Index: No Internet: Yes R. SUDHAKAR,J., To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge) Krishnagiri.
CMA No. 778 /2009 Date: 01.4.2009