The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 16.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.382 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court) Thiruvallur.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 27.11.2006. The deceased Athimoolam, aged 38 years, working as a mason, was travellaing as passenger in the appellant transport corporation. When he was getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus took the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he fell down and the bus ran over him and he died on the spot. The wife aged 33 years, minor son aged 14 years and the mother aged 65 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- p.m.
3. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the liability of the appellant transport corporation is not seriously disputed in appeal and such finding of the Tribunal stands confirmed.
4. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. Documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.P3 is the legal heirship certificate. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal.
5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Based on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 16, in terms of the second schedule to
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of pecuniary benefits. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,84,000/-
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side since the deceased was 38 years old at the time of the accident. and therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 27.11.2006. The deceased was 38 years old mason and the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. The income fixed is low taking into consideration the following Division Bench decisions of this Court :-
(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.
(ii) In terms of the second schedule to
Section 163 A of the M.V.Act, the proper multiplier will be 16 as the deceased is 38 years old, which has been rightly adopted by the Tribunal.
(iii) The future prospects of the deceased has not been taken into consideration.
(iv) Meager amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the minor son and the aged mother and loss of consortium to the young widow.
(v) Considering the above aspects, the total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- does not require further reduction as also the interest at 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in the year 2008.
8. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. No costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that entire award amount has already been deposited and the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
ra To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court) Thiruvallur