IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 20.03.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.03.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM C.M.A.No.3422 of 2005 Tamilnadu State Transport Corpporation Ltd., Division I, Kumbakonam, Kumbakonam Town & Munsifi ... Appellant Vs.
1. Panneerselvam
2. Rajasekar
3. Minor Vijayakanth Minor rep.by guardian Panneerselvam ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.157 of 2003, dated 11.03.2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.S.Sounthar - - - - -
JUDGMENT The appeal arises out of the award dated 11.03.2004 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.157 of 2003, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Mayiladuthurai, has ordered the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-, for the death of one Kaliyamurthy due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident said to have taken place on 19.03.2002 at 11.50 hours.
2. A claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.157 of 2003 was filed by the claimants, viz., brothers of the deceased, claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Kaliyamurthy in the accident, which was resisted by the appellant Corporation.
3. The Tribunal, after framing issues, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation and as a result of the same, the victim sustained injuries and died instantaneously. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation and accordingly, determined a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/corporation, apart from denying the negligence on the part of its driver, also contended that the award of Rs.2,30,000/- is highly excessive.
5. The Tribunal, based on the oral evidence let in on the side of claimants that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and has rightly concluded that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident and hence, the appellant Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimant for the death of Kaliyamurthy in the accident. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
6. While coming to the question of quantum, the Tribunal, based on the evidence both oral and documentary, found that the deceased aged 30 at the time of accident, was a tricycle owner cum driver earning a sum of Rs.1500/- per month and thus taking his annual income as Rs.18000/- and adopting the multiplier 18, arrived at a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- as future loss of income. By deducting one third towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- as loss of income to the family.
7. Besides, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.10000/- towards loss of love and affection. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. The trial Court after considering the age of the deceased adopted multiplier 18. In my considered view according to Sarala Varma the correct multiplier is 17. Hence the trial Court committed error while calculating loss of pecuniary benefit and thus multiplier 17 has to be adopted.
8. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, and a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, and Rs.2,000/- under the head transportation to the claimants and the said amounts just and proper. Accordingly, the compensation is fixed as follows:-
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation for the death of their brother. Hence Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the third petitioner remain as it is. The balance amount of Rs.1,18,000/- be equally apportioned between the first and second petitioner, ie., Rs.59,000/- each.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.2,18,000/- from Rs.2,30,000/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum stands confirmed and other conditions remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs.
21.03.2017 Internet :Yes dpq G.CHOCKALINGAM dpq To
1. The(Principal Subordinate Judge) Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
Pre Delivery Judgment in C.M.A.No.3422 of 2005 21.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in