The transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 14.5.2001 in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Nagapattinam.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 15.7.2000. The deceased Dhanalakshmi, aged about 40 years was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus and she died. Mother aged 60 years and brother aged 38 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation .
3. In support of the claim , brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. Documents Exs. A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal.
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 in dispute and such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
5. The Tribunal accepted the plea that the deceased was agricultural coolie cum milk vendor. Based on the post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed as 47 years. There is no proof with regard to the income. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- p.m. and after deducting 1/3 rd towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family was fixed as Rs.1,000/- p.m. The Tribunal by adopting 8 multiplier, fixed the pecuniary loss as Rs.96,000/-. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- for shock and mental agony, Rs.2,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
6. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier of 8 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side on the ground that the brother of the deceased is not a dependent and the mother of the deceased is 60 years old and therefore, the higher multiplier of 8 is not justified and the same has to be reduced. He also challenged the interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% p.a.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants pleaded that aged mother is a dependent and she has lost the benefit of the contribution made by the deceased which will accrue till the life time of the dependent/mother. He justified the quantum of compensation.
8. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court is not inclined to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons.
9. The accident in this case happened in the year 2000. The deceased is a agricultural coolie. The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:-
(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.
10. Therefore, the income of the deceased should have been fixed at least at Rs.3,000/- p.m. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- as above and even if the multiplier is reduced as stated by the counsel for the appellant, the compensation would be much more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. However, the plea with regard to the reduction of interest deserves consideration as the accident happened in the year 2000 and the award passed in the year 2001. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% stands reduced to 9% p.a.
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the modification with regard to interest alone.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant states that entire amount has been deposited and the claimants were permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective share with interest as per the order of this Court dated 22.1.2004. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance amount as per the order of this Court.
13. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount if any, after settling the claimants. No costs.
05.1.2009 ra Index: No Internet: Yes.
To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge) Nagapattinam.
R. SUDHAKAR,J., CMA No. 601 of 2003 Date: 5.1.2009