The Executive Director v. Minor.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN C.M.A.No. 1046 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.7980 of 2016 The Executive Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Depot, Kumbakonam ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.
1.Minor Ramesh minor rep.by his grand mother and next friend Sundarambal 2.Sundarambal 3.Marimuthu 4.N.Thamizhselvan ... Respondents/Respondents (the 4th respondent who is 1st respondent 1 to 3 in the main claim petition was set ex-parte before the tribunal) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and decree dated 28.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.407 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Chidambaram.
For appellant :
Mr.D.Venkatachalam For Respondents : M/s.Royan Law Associates for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Chidambaram, by judgement and decree dated 28.09.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.407 of 2009, the present appeal has been filed by the State Transport Corporation.
2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants before the Tribunal. The first respondent is the son of the deceased, second and third respondents are the parents respectively. The fourth respondent is the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.
3. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 26.10.2008 at about 8.00 a.m, when the deceased Kannan along with his minor son was travelling in a bus bearing Reg. No. T.N.49N-1297, which was proceeding from Pazhayar to Chidambaram, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Thandavakulam Pudupalam, he turned the bus in the road curve and due to that, the said Kannan fell down on the floor and the back side tire of the bus ran over his head and he died on the spot. Hence, the claimants made a claim before the Tribunal as against the Transport Corporation, claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.
4. Resisting the claim petition, the Transport Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and so, he lost his balance when the driver of the bus turned the bus in a curve, and fell down from the bus and hence, the transport corporation is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimants, the second claimant, viz., the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4. On the side of the respondents, the driver of the bus viz., Mr.Manivannan was examined as R.W.1 and no document was exhibited on their side.
6. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as compensation as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-. Aggrieved over the said quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation submitted that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side, which resulted in awarding an exorbitant sum of Rs.6,12,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ respondents submitted that the monthly income fixed
by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher side considering the cost of living prevailing in the present day. He has further submitted that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is not on the higher side. Further, he has submitted that as per the decision in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009(2) TNMAC 1) and Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others (2012 ACJ 1428), the Tribunal ought to have added 30% towards future prospects. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation under the head of conventional damages and no amount has been awarded towards love and affection to the parents of the deceased and a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards transportation charges is also very low. When that being so, absolutely there is no necessity to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.
9. Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record.
10. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and in her evidence, she had stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, as a cook. Though she had stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, in the absence of documentary evidence to prove the same, the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.4,500/- as monthly income. In my considered opinion, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, the said amount cannot be said to be excessive considering the cost of living prevailing in the present day. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of 17 as per II Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, has fixed a sum of Rs.
6,12,000/- towards loss of income, which cannot be said to be on the higher side. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case in Rajesh & Others vs. Rajbir Singh & Others, reported in 2013(2) TNMAC (SC) 55, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects and as such, the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be on the higher side. That apart, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the parents, namely, claimants 2 and 3 and the sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards transportation is also on the lower side. When that being so, the total sum of Rs.7,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive at any stretch of imagination.
Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no compelling circumstances warranting this Court to make interference in the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Chidambaram, dated 28.09.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.407 of 2009, is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
12. The Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with proportionate costs and interest from the date of claim petition to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.407 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, if not deposited already, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the second respondent/second claimant and third respondent/third claimant are entitled to make necessary applications to withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal.
As far as the share of the minor first claimant/first respondent is concerned, the same shall be invested in a Nationalized Bank under fixed deposit scheme, initially for a period of one year, which shall be renewable thereafter from time to time till the minor attains majority. The second respondent / second claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued therein, once in three months. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msk To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Chidambaram 1 cc to Mr.D.Venkatachalam, Advocate, sr.29034 C.M.A.No. 1046 of 2016 nrjk co 14.06.2016