The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 7.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pollachi.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 10.12.2001. The deceased S.Valliammal, said to be aged 50 years, a milk supplier, was walking on the road. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said Valliammal. In that accident, the said Valliammal died. The husband aged 55 years, the three sons aged 27 years, 25 years, 14 years and two daughters aged 23 years and 19 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month.
3. In support of the claim, the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Karthikeyan, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of FIR, dated 10.12.2001, Ex.P-2 is the photocopy of the rough sketch, Ex.P-3 is the photocopy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 11.12.2001, Ex.P-4 is the photocopy of the post-mortem certificate of the deceased dated 11.12.2001, Ex.P-5 is the true copy of the death certificate of the deceased dated 18.1.2002 and Ex.P-6 is the true copy of the legal heir certificate of the deceased dated 14.5.2002.
The first respondent Mr.Sankar, 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 second 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. As far as compensation is concerned, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.3. In the absence of documentary evidence, the income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.3,000/- per month. Of which 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased 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 post-mortem certificate Ex.A-4 the Tribunal, fixed the age of the deceased as 53 years. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted 11 multiplier and granted the total pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 11 = 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 family of the deceased Rs.2,64,000/-
6. In appeal, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal in a case of 53 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 10.12.2001. The deceased is a lady and said to be a milk supplier and that is not disputed. Besides her husband, the deceased was taken care of large family consisting three sons and two daughters of which one son is a minor.
(ii) In so far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the income of the deceased 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 2001. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, ought to have fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month as claimed. This will be keeping in line with the living wages during the period of accident.
(iii)The lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the husband and the loss of love and affection to the three sons and two daughters is very very meagre.
(iv) Since the compensation granted towards loss of consortium to the husband and loss of love and affection to three sons and two daughters is very very meagre, and lesser income fixed by the Tribunal, the marginally higher multiplier will compensate for the same.
(v) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- 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 2001 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.
ts To The Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Pollachi