***** This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant / Transport Corporation against the award of Rs.3,99,000/- made in M.C.O.P.No.2235 of 2003, dated 03.08.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III-Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruchirappalli, for the death of one Ramesh in the accident which occurred on 30.05.2003, when the deceased was working on the road, the driver of the appellant / Transport Corporation bus had driven the bus rashly and negligently and dashed against him and caused fatal injuries. Therefore, the claim petition.
2. The Tribunal found that the driver of the appellant / Transport Corporation bus had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and fixed the liability on the appellant / Transport Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs.3,99,000/- taking Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The said amount is being challenged before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased crossed the road without knowing about the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 oncoming bus. However, the said contention was rejected by the Tribunal.
4. Further, taking note of the filing of Ex.P1 – First Information Report and the Criminal Court's Judgment in Ex.P3, dated 24.07.2003 and also based on the evidence of PW.2 eyewitness, the Tribunal rejected the evidence of RW.1 conductor stating that only the driver of bus alone was eyewitness and he was not examined as witness. The finding of the Tribunal that the Driver of the appellant / Transport Corporation alone is the reason for the accident is based on the evidence on record and hence, the same is confirmed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the absence of any proof regarding the income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as income and the same is set aside.
6. It is seen that the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was working as an Electrician, earning Rs.150/- per day. Though there is no proof regarding the income, the Tribunal took Rs.100/- as daily income and taken Rs.3,000/- as monthly income instead of Rs. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 150/- as pleaded by the claimants. The said determination of Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income is on the lower side. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC), determined the monthly income of a driver, who died in the accident which occurred on 07.06.1999, at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) in the absence of any material evidence to prove the income and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Whereas in this case, the deceased died in the accident on 30.05.2003, after four years and therefore, this Court is inclined to follow the said Judgment and determine the monthly income as Rs.4,500/-. 1/3rd was rightly deducted by the Tribunal towards “personal expenses” and the same is valid. After deduction of 1/3rd amount, the loss of income would be Rs.4,500/- (-) 1/3 (4500) = Rs.3,000/-. Though the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident, based on the Ex.P2 Postmortem certificate the Tribunal found that the age of the deceased was 39 years and adopted multiplier 16. However, as per the Judgment of the of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), the appropriate http://www.judis.nic.in 5 multiplier, for 39 years, would be 15. Accordingly, the loss of income would be 3000x12x15 = Rs.5,40,000/-.
7. The first respondent was awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards “loss of consortium”, which is very meager and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54. Similarly, only Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards “loss of love and affection” to the other respondents which is very low. The second respondent minor son, has lost love and affection of his father, through out his life and therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Similarly, the third respondent / mother was awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and the same is hereby confirmed. No amount was awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation and funeral expenses, which are all necessary for the claimants. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded in toto. Totally a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- is awarded.
8. Accordingly, respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum http://www.judis.nic.in 6 from the date of petition till date of realisation and propotionate costs.
9. Even though this appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Transport Corporation against the award of Rs.3,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, this Court, on re-appreciating the evidence and applying the current proposition of law, has suo motu enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,30,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) even in the absence of appeal / cross appeal invoking Order 41 Rule 33 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for which, this Court has got power and jurisdiction as declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in 2004 (2) TNMAC 398 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 274.
10. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, however, the award amount is enhanced from Rs.3,99,000/- to Rs.7,30,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs; http://www.judis.nic.in 7
(ii) Out of the said sum, the first respondent/wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) along with proportionate interest and costs;
(iii) The second respondent minor is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, along with proportionate interest and costs;
(iv) The third respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- along with proportionate interest and costs;
(v) The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants 1 to 3 are directed to pay the additional Court Fees, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(vi) The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2235 of 2003, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum – Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruchirappalli., along with accrued interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(vii) On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share amounts of the respondents 1 and 3 / claimants 1 and 3 directly to their Personal Savings Bank Account Numbers, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting their Account Details within a period of two weeks thereafter;
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
(viii) Insofar as the share of the 2nd respondent minor is concerned, the Tribunal shall deposit the same in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in any one of the nationalised banks under the renewable scheme, till he attains majority and the first respondent/first claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor claimant 2.
(ix) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 03.02.2017 Internet :Yes/No Note: Since in the appeal filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation, the compensation has been enhanced, in the absence of respondents / claimants, office is directed to send a copy of this order free of cost to the respondents directly.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruchirappalli.
2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division – II, Periamilaguparai, Trichy.
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. http://www.judis.nic.in 10 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J Trp Judgment made in C.M.A.(MD)No.101 of 2017 AND C.M.P (MD) 1014 of 2017 03.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in