R.Sankar v. The Managing Director, Mtc., Ltd., Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.08.2020

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN C.M.A.No.269 of 2017

1. R.Sankar

2. S.Devi, W/o. Sankar ... Appellants / Claimants Vs.

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

... Respondent/ Respondent Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 15.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.980 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court) Tiruvallur.

For Appellants :

Mr. K.Varadha Kamaraj For Respondent :

Mr. K.Murthy

J U D G M E N T

The parents of the deceased S.Dinesh Babu have filed M.C.O.P.No.980 of 2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court), Tiruvallur, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 07.07.2007 at about 9.20 a.m., the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation had taken the bus without any signal at Chennai Munusamy Road, Nesappakam bus stand, due to which Dinesh Babu, who was trying to board the bus had fallen down and subsequently died. At the time of accident, Dinesh Babu was aged about 19, doing Electrician work and earning Rs.4,000/- per month, as salary.

3. The Tribunal, based on the materials available on record and the evidence, has observed that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus and hence fixed the liability on the Transport Corporation and quantified the compensation at Rs.3,65,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) towards the loss of dependency and funeral expenses payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Aggrieved against the quantum awarded, the Appellants/Claimants are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellants / Claimants submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day as against the claim of Rs.400/- per day; considering the evidence of the second appellant, the Tribunal ought to have fixed monthly income at Rs.12,000/- per month; the Tribunal went wrong in adopting the multiplier of 15; as the deceased was aged about 19 years the proper multiplier to be adopted is 18, as per the precedents and that the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of love and affection; and since the claimants (parents) have lost their only son, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under each and every heads. 5.

Per contra, Mr.K.Murthy learned counsel for the Transport Corporation / respondent submitted that the deceased being bachelor and aged about 19 years the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, but ought to have deducted 50%. He further submitted that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.400/- per day, no proof was produced by them to the said effect. He also submitted that the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side. 6.

This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

7.

Since the learned counsel on either side have not disputed the findings rendered by the Tribunal on negligence, this Court would like to deal only with the findings rendered by the Tribunal on quantum, eschewing the negligence aspect. Hence the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the negligence are confirmed as such.

8.The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal expenses, adopted the multiplier of 15 and has awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15, taking note of the age of the parents of the deceased.

9.In this connection, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased to calculate the loss of dependency. As per Ex.P3Post Mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was 18 years. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), for the age of 18, the correct multiplier to be taken is 18 and it is taken accordingly. As far as the monthly income of Rs.400/- per day is concerned, the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary

proof, has awarded Rs.100/- per day. In the considered view of this Court, an electrician would be earning at least Rs.125 to Rs.140/- per day and hence the monthly income would be safely taken at Rs.4,000/- p.m. The deceased, being a bachelor, the deduction to be made towards his personal expenses is only at 50% and not 1/3rd as done by the Claims Tribunal. Hence the loss of dependency would be Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x18 (-) 50%).

10.The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which in the considered view of this Court is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence sums of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- are hereby awarded under those heads.

11.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the appellants / claimants is partly-allowed by enhancing the total amount of compensation from Rs.3,65,000/- to Rs.5,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. It is made clear that the claimants are not entitled for interest for the compensation amount, in respect of the period of delay in filing this appeal.

12.The respondent Transport Corporation shall deposit the modified amount of compensation, as ordered above, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the deposited amount to the Savings Bank Accounts of the claimants/appellants, within one week thereafter, through RTGS, in the ratio of apportionment as done by the Claims Tribunal. No costs.

13.It is made clear that the claimants have to pay the appropriate Court fee in order to receive the awarded amount. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Srk To

1. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tiruvallur.

Copy To The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104. (2 Copies) +1cc to Mr.Varadakamaraj, Advocate, S.R.No. 28728 +1cc to Mr.Moorthy, Advocate, S.R.No. 28438 C.M.A.No.269 of 2017 MG(CO) GN(24/08/2021)