The transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 3.4.2008 made in MCOP No. 131 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court) Gingee.
2. It is case of fatal accident which happened on 3.6.2003. The deceased Udayakumar was on duty as a conductor in the ill fated bus which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and hit against a stationary lorry. In that accident, the conductor Udayakumar, aged 42 years, died on the spot. The wife aged 34 years, two minor sons aged 10 and 6 years , father aged 70 years and the mother aged 65 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.9,000/- p.m.
3. In support of the claim, Tmt. Neelavathi, wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Ramesh Babu, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 is the school record sheet. Ex.A4 is the salary certificate. Ex.A5 is the legal heir certificate. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. and no documentary evidence was let in.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus in which the deceased was travelling as a conductor and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 42 years as per Ex.A3, school record sheet. Though the income was claimed at Rs.9,000/- p.m. based on Ex.A4 salary certificate, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., (i.e.) Rs.96,000/- per annum considering the remaining period of service. The Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family at Rs.64,000/- p.a. Based on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal by adopting 14 multiplier, determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.8,96,000/-. The tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.8,96,000/-
6. In appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the salary of the deceased is not supported by the evidence of the employer and no salary slip is filed and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of the quantum of compensation for the following reasons.
(i) The accident in this case happened on 3.6.2003. In that accident, the deceased, a 42 years old conductor died. His income of Rs.7,354.20 is supported by the salary certificate Ex.A4 issued by the employer. The Tribunal, however, considering the remaining period of service and future prospects of the deceased fixed the income at Rs.8,000/-p.m. which is marginal and in any event reasonable.
(ii) In terms of the second schedule to
Section 163 -A of the M.V.Act, the appropriate multiplier is 15 whereas, the Tribunal adopted 14 multiplier on the death of the 42 years old conductor. (iii) Meager amount has been granted towards loss of consortium to the wife, aged 34 years, who has to take care of two minor children. Further a meager sum of Rs.15,000/- alone has been granted towards loss of love and affection to the claimants viz., father, mother and two minor children. No amount has been granted towards loss of estate.
8. Considering all these aspects, this Court is unable to find any good reason to reduce the quantum of compensation as well as the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2008.
9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal.
ra To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( Sub Court) Gingee