This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2003 passed in MACTOP No.148 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Permabalur awarding a compensation of Rs.54,500/-.
2. The appellant, aggrieved by the above award of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal for additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
3. The short facts of the case are as follows;-
On 04.03.2001, after finishing their darshanam in the Chidambaram temple, the tourist bus bearing registration No.TN-32-X-9373 was parked near the Pagimuthan odai for the passengers to take supper. The deceased subbammal after attending her call of nature, was standing in the south of the road. At that time, the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-32-N-1035, driven by its driver, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased Subbammal fell down and sustained head injuries with bleeding all over her body and in a state of unconsciousness. Later the deceased was taken to Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital by her crew tourist passenger. Unfortunately, even after much care taken by the hospital authorities, the deceased died in the hospital at about 10.30 p.m. A case has been registered by the Chidambaram Nagar Police Station in crime No.63 of 2001 under
Section 304(A) of I.P.C. against the driver of the respondent and is pending investigation. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by the Deputy Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Chidambaram.
4. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident and death and she was working as a Sithal, earning Rs.75/- per day by way of salary. The petitioner, being the only daughter of the deceased had claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in her claim. Under
Sections 140 and
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent being the employer of the driver, is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
5. The respondent in his counter has resisted the claim stating that the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are not admitted. Further, the manner of accident as alleged by the petitioner is not correct. It has been submitted that on 04.03.2001, the respondent bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-1035 took its trip from Puthukuppam at about 21.00 hrs and proceeded to Chidambaram, driven by its driver carefully and diligently. When the bus was proceeding near Pasimuthuan odai, an old lady had suddenly crossed the road from left side to right side, without minding the traffic. On seeing the lady crossing the road suddenly, the driver of the respondent had swerved vehicle to the extreme left side of the road and stopped it. Despite the best efforts of the respondents driver, the old woman hit herself on the bumper of the respondent's bus and sustained fatal injuries. Thus, the deceased herself invited her death and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent's driver. Hence, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further, claim is excessive.
6. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, perambalur framed two issues namely 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If, so, to what extent.
7. On the petitioner's side, one Selladurai, was examined as PW2, the eye witness to the accident. He deposed that on 04.03.2001 at about 09.30 p.m. the Tourist party returned from Sirkali to Chidambaram near Pagimuthan odai, the deceased and some others went for attending call of nature. At that time, the respondent's driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased died in the hospital at 10.30 p.m. To rebut the evidence, on the side of the respondent, the driver of the vehicle was examined as RW1. He has deposed that when he was driving his vehicle in a normal speed near Pagumuthan odai, a lady suddenly crossed the road. Though he applied brakes immediately, the lady came in contact with the bus and fell down. The accident occurred purely due to negligence on the part of the deceased. But, he has admitted in cross examination that the police, after investigation filed a charge sheet against him and the case is pending. Considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also the exhibit Ex.P1, the evidence of RW1 is not reliable. Hence the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent.
8. The petitioner had alleged that her mother Subbammal was a Sithal, aged 50 years and that she was earning Rs.75/- per day and that the petitioner had lost the support of her mother due to the sudden death. PW1 has deposed that her mother was aged 50 years at the time of accident and earned Rs.50/- per day. The petitioner had not filed any records to prove the age or income of the deceased. On the side of the respondent also no evidence was produced to rebut the evidence of PW1. Ex.P2 is the postmortem certificate. The age of Subbammal was mentioned as 50 years and hence the Court accepted that the age of deceased was 50.
9. Considering the PW1's evidence that the daily income of the deceased was Rs.50/- and taking into consideration of the uncertainty of her work, the Court decided that a consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of life, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate would be sufficient. Hence, the Tribunal decided that the petitioner was entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.54,500/- and the respondent was directed to pay the above compensation, within a month, together with interest of 9% from the date of petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs. The compensation amount should be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank for a period of three years and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in six months.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant, in his appeal, has argued that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- alone for the loss of life. The petitioner has lost the love and affection of her mother which cannot be valued at all. The Tribunal has not even adopted any multiplier for considering income of the deceased. The appellant is entitled for more sum on this head. The Tribunal should have seen that the deceased was an agricultural worker, who has earned not less than Rs.75/- per day and should have adopted a multiplier of 13 and awarded a compensation of RS.2,92,500/- whereas the trial Court has not even awarded 1/3 of the petitioner's claim. Further, the Tribunal had erred in not awarding any amount for transportation since, the occurrence took place at Chidambaram, whereas the funeral took place at the village of deceased family namely Perambalur District. Hence, no amount has been awarded for transporting the corpse from Chidambaram after postmortem. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.54,500/- in a blind folded manner, because in the evidence, the claimant has restricted the income of the deceased as Rs.50 per day and the same has not been rebutted by the respondent. In view of the above circumstance, the multiplier is 13, and so the appellant is entitled to at least Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. As such, it was argued that the award of the Tribunal is very low and the same deserves to be enhanced.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that excepting the claimant there are no other dependants of the deceased. the deceased herself dashed against the corporation bus. The age and income of the deceased has also not been proved properly. Further, there is absolutely no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.54,500/- to the claimant for loss of life; for loss of estate and funeral expenses of the deceased. So, the award granted by the Tribunal is correct.
12. For the above said reasons and on consideration of the claim petition and facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of the counsels for both the sides and the judgments of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur, the Court is of the view that although the Tribunal has decided on the issue of negligence correctly, the quantum of compensation awarded has not been correctly decided. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under Rs.50,000/- towards loss of life; Rs.2,000/ for funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- for loss of estate. Altogether Rs.54,500/- was awarded to the claimant. But, the Tribunal having come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 50 and her earnings were Rs.50 per day, being wages for Sithal (labourers involved in construction work), should have adopted multiplier to arrive at compensation. As such, this Court taking a multiplier of 13, considering the deceased age and fixing a monthly income of Rs.2,250/- for the deceased and subtracting 1/3rd from this income for personal expenses, grants an award of (2250-750) X 12X13 = Rs.2,34,000/= as compensation to the claimant, for loss of income. For transportation, this Court grants Rs.10,000/=, since the deceased was brought from Chidambaram to Permbalur. Normally when a dead body is brought in a hired vehicle, the charges will be on the higher side and so the Court has granted the above said amount for transportation. This Court grants an award of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total a sum of Rs.2,54,000/- is granted by this Court as compensation to the claimant. Already, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.54,500/- as compensation to the claimant and this additional compensation of Rs.1,99,500/- will carry an interest of 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment.
13. This Court directs the respondent, Transport Corporation to deposit the additional compensation of Rs.1,99,500/- with accrued interest, as mentioned above, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order into the credit of MCOP NO.148 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur. As the accident happened about 8 years before, it is open to the claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP NO.148 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. Resultingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in the above terms. Consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur in MCOP NO.148 of 2001 is modified. The Court directs the appellant/claimant to pay the Court fee for a sum of Rs.99,500/- alone as the appellant has already paid the Court fee for Rs.1,00,000/-. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.
JIKR To Principal District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Perambalur