The transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 30.6.2004 passed in MCOP No. 115 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge- Fast Tract Court No.IV) Erode at Bhavani.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 22.11.2001. The deceased Murugan @ Murugesan, an electrician, aged 28 years, was walking on the road, when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in that accident, he died. The wife, aged 25 years, two minor daughters, one minor son and the mother, aged 50 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- p.m.
3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Gurunathan was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. Ex. A1 is the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the rough sketch. Ex.A3 is the observation mahazar. Ex.A4 is the M.V.I. Report. Ex.A5 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A6 is the charge sheet. Ex.A7 is the copy of the judgment in criminal case. Ex.A8 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.A9 is the copy of the report of Ramakrishna hospital. On behalf of the appellant/2nd respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/2nd respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, who is responsible for the accident and the death and the liability of the transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
5. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. equivalent to Rs.36,000/- p.a. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting 18 multiplier, the Tribunal determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 4,08,000/-
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 18 multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand pleaded that the quantum of compensation is just and reasonable and need not be reduced.
8. In this case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-
(i) The income of the deceased electrician was taken as Rs.3,000/- p.m. He died in the accident which happened in the year 2001.
(ii) If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the annual income would come to Rs.36,000/-. After deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of pecuniary benefits would come to Rs.24,000/-. By adopting 18 multiplier, the loss of pecuniary benefits would come to Rs.4,32,000/-. But the Tribunal wrongly calculated to Rs.4,08,000/-.
(iii) Further, 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.
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. The deceased was an electrician.
(iv) The deceased in this case supported the family consisting of the wife, three minor children and the aged mother. Taking into consideration the living wages, price rise and the cost of living, and also the above decisions, the income of the deceased should have been fixed at least at Rs.3,500/- p.m. Even if the multiplier is marginally reduced and the higher income as above is taken, the compensation would be much more than what has been granted by the Tribunal.
(v) In this case, meager amount has been granted for funeral expenses and loss of consortium to the wife
(vi) No amount has been granted towards loss of love and affection to the three minor children and the aged mother.
(vii) Considering all these aspects, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any modification or reduction. Hence, the total compensation granted in this case is justified.
(viii) As far as the interest is concerned, it is alleged that the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is marginally higher. This court is not inclined to interfere with it as it will compensate the lesser amount granted on conventional heads.
9. Finding no merits, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 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 order of the Tribunal.
ra/ts To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( Additional District Judge-
Fast Tract Court No.IV) Erode at Bhavani