The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 10.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1117 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV), Tiruppur.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 30.8.2006. The deceased Palaniyappan, said to be aged 51 years, a barber by profession, was travelling on a bicycle.. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said Palaniyappan. In that accident, the said Palaniayappan died. The wife aged 43 years, the son aged 27 years and the mother aged 76 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.6 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.
3. Before the Tribunal, the present claim was adjudicated along with connected claim M.C.O.P.No.1116 of 2006. In support of the claim on hand, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. One Muthuramalingam, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. The claimant in another case was examined as P.W.1. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of both the claims. The documents which are relevant in this case are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the copy of printed FIR, dated 30.8.2006, Ex.A-9 is the post mortem certificate of the deceased Palaniappan, Ex.A-10 is the death certificate of the deceased Palaniappan dated 9.11.2006 and Ex.A-11 is the legal heir certificate of the deceased Palaniappan, Ex.A-5 is the ID Card and Ex.A-6 is the legal heir certificate.
Mr.Gnanaprakasam, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant is not seriously disputed in the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation.
5. The Tribunal, in this case based on Ex.A-9 post mortem certificate, fixed the age of the deceased as 55 years. Taking into consideration of the age of the claimants, and the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted 11 multiplier. Based on the evidence of the wife of the deceased, the income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.3,000/- per month as against Rs.6,000/- claimed, of which 1/3 was deducted and the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased was taken as Rs.2,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.24,000/- per annum. Based on 11 multiplier, the total compensation granted was Rs.2,64,000/-. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest as follows:-
Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased Rs.2,64,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife on the death of her husband Rs. 5,000/- 4
Loss of love and affection to the son and mother of the deceased (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.2,82,000/-
6. In appeal, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of 55 years old earning member is high. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 30.8.2006. Admittedly, the deceased was a barber by occupation and supporting the wife, son and aged mother.
(ii) In so far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the income at Rs.3,000/- per month, keeping in view of the following 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.
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, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2006. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, ought to have fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month if not Rs.6,000/- as claimed. This will be keeping in line with the living wages during the period of accident.
(iii) Since the income of the deceased has been drastically reduced, the marginally higher multiplier will compensate for the same. Further, a very meagre amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the son and the mother of the deceased. A very meagre amount has been granted towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. No amount has been granted towards transport expenses.
(iv) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award is of the year 2008.
8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9.4.2009 Index: No. Internet: Yes ts To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV), (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Tiruppur. R.SUDHAKAR,J. ts Judgment in C.M.A.No.861 of 2009 9.4.2009