The Transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 05.04.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2. The matter was listed on 12.12.2009 for admission and was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant and in the meanwhile, the respondent/ claimants entered appearance through counsel. They have also filed an application for withdrawal of the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. At request of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 3.9.2005 at about 1.30 a.m. The deceased Sasikumar, aged 28 years was travelling in a bullock cart driven by one Loganathan from Gudiyatham to Pallikondan. The said bullock cart was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in that accident, Sasikumar died. One of the bulls was severely injured and died. On the death of Sasikumar, the wife aged 24 years, daughters aged 4 years and 1 = years and the mother aged 42 years filed a claim for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.
4. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Loganathan was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. P1 to P12 were marked. On behalf of the appellant one Raman, Conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. The injured Claimant Loganathan also filed another claim for the injuries sustained by him and for the death of the bull. A common order was passed by the Tribunal. In sofar as the injuries caused to Loganathan, a sum of Rs.27,000/- was granted as compensation which includes the compensation for the death of the bull and the damage to the cart with interest at 6% p.a. As against the said award, no appeal has been filed by the appellant transport corporation. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus stands accepted.
5. In the present appeal also, there is no dispute with regard to the compensation. The only contention raised is with regard to the fixation of income. According to the oral evidence, the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-p.m. The tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. After deducting 1/3rd, the Tribunal fixed the total contribution to dependents at Rs.24,000/- p.a. Based on the age of the deceased 25 years as per the post mortem certificate Ex.P3 and the wife, who is said to be 24 years, the Tribunal adopted 18 multiplier and determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal also granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.4,32,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs. 2,761/- 5 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.4,46,761/-
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. However, on going through the grounds of appeal, there appears to be no such plea with regard to the multiplier. In any event, since the deceased was 25 years old as per the post mortem certificate and the wife is said to be 24 years old, the higher multiplier of 18 can be adopted in view of the Apex Court decisions in New India Assurance vs.- Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1316 = 2007(1) Supreme 514 and in The Managing Director, TNSTC vs. - Sripriya and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC).
7. In 2007(1) TN MAC 319 (SC) the Supreme Court held thus in paragraph 13 to 15 as follows:-
"13. In G.M.Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631, it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequently be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22, appears to be appropriate. In fact in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, 1996(4) SCALE 22, after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. (See:New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Charlie and Another, 2005(10) SCC 720. (emphasis supplied)
14. The above position was highlighted in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors., 2006(6) SCC 249; Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v. K.I. Bindu, 2005(8) SCC 473; T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. - v. S.Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236; Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Lasman Iyer, 2003(8)SCC 731; State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2003(7) SCC 484; The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., 2007(2) SCALE 227; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendar & Ors. JT 2006(10) SC 234.
15. Considering the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier would be 12. The income fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction for personal expenses do not warrant any interference. Worked out on that basis, the entitlement of the loss of income is Rs.5,76,000/-. The other expenses awarded remain unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the claimants is fixed at Rs.6,00,000/-. It would be appropriate to fix the rate of interest at 7.5% instead of 9% as done by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court."
The ratio of the above said decisions will be applicable to the present case.
8. Further, the accident, in this case happened in the year 2005. The income of the earning member supporting the wife, two minor children and the mother could have been fixed much higher in view of the following two decisions in B.Anandhi vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., and in State of Haryana and another vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly.
9. The rate of interest is also very low. The compensation for loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to the two minor children is paltry. Therefore, there is no good reason as to why the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced.
Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009 are closed. No costs.
1.4.2009 ra Index: No Internet: Yes To Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Region II Vizhupuram Division, Rangapuram, Vellore.
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
CMA No 3349 of 2008 Date: 1.4.2009