Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1863 (MAD)

The Managing Director v. Manika Naidu & Others

2006-07-25

R.SUDHAKAR

body2006
Judgment :- (Appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tiruppathur, Vellore District dated 25.11.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2003.) This Appeal coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.V. Vasanthakumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Mr. P.S. Kothandaraman, Advocate for the Respondents, and this Court while disposing of the appeal and in modification of the Award of the Tribunal below, doth order and decree as follows; 1. That the Respondents 1 and 2/Claimants 1 and 2, be and hereby are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.5,09,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and nine thousand only) instead of Rs.4,12,300/- (Rupees four lakhs twelve thousand and three hundred only) as awarded by the Tribunal below; 2. That the Respondents 1 and 2/Claimants 1 and 2 be and hereby are entitled to an interest of 9% on the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 3. That in other respects, the Award of the Tribunal below do stand; and 4. That there be no costs in this Appeal. At the time of hearing the stay petition, on request of learned counsel appearing for both sides. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Tribunal. 3. This is a case of fatal accident. On 13.3.2003 at about 2.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding TVS-50 vehicles (two-wheeler), the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-0357, belonging to the Transport Corporation, dashed against the two-wheeler and consequently, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Based on the said accident, the father, mother and brothers of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs under various heads. It was stated in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- and he was aged about 27 years and unmarried. He was Electrician in protecting power transmission and was working in a company, by name Magaji Electricals and Civil Works Ltd., Bangalore. 4. It was stated in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- and he was aged about 27 years and unmarried. He was Electrician in protecting power transmission and was working in a company, by name Magaji Electricals and Civil Works Ltd., Bangalore. 4. In support of the claim petition, the first claimant-father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. the following documents were relied upon in support of the claim petition: Ex.P-1 is the copy of the FIR. Ex.P-2 is the copy of the post-mortem report, Ex.P-3 is the document relating to the employment of the deceased, Ex.P-4 is the passport, Ex.P-5 is the certified copy of the FIR in C.C.No.98 of 2003, Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P-7 is the certified copy of the charge-sheet in C.C.No.98 of 2003. 5. R.W.1 driver was examined on behalf of the Transport Corporation and there was no documentary evidence. 6. While deciding the question of negligence, the Tribunal considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents, namely FIR and the proceedings of the Criminal Court, and came to the conclusion that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the Tribunal observed that there was no material relied upon by the Transport Corporation to hold that the deceased was in any responsible for the accident in question. Therefore, the negligence was fixed on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. There is no serious dispute on the question of negligence in the present appeal. 7. Except to plead that the evidence of P.W.2, the eye-witness could not be relied upon, there is no other material in the present appeal to negative the finding of the Tribunal. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the deceased at 27 years and the nature of employment, determined his monthly income at Rs.5,000 p.m. which is not disputed and adopted ‘14’ multiplier and the amount was determined at Rs.8,40,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,80,000/- was deducted as expenses and the balance of Rs.5,60,000/- was determined as loss of income. 9. A sum of Rs.2,80,000/- was deducted as expenses and the balance of Rs.5,60,000/- was determined as loss of income. 9. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards transportation, Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2000/- towards damage to the vehicle Rs.10,000/- for loss of assistance of the deceased to the claimants 1 and 2 and Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection to the claimants 1 and 2. In all, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.5,89,000/-. After such determination, since the amount has been determined as lumpsum compensation, taking into consideration the age of the claimants and their future expectancy of life of the claimants, 30% of the above said sum was deducted from the total award and the Tribunal therefore determined the compensation at Rs.4,12,300/- with 9% interest. The Tribunal rejected the compensation to the claimants 3 and 4 who are the brothers of the deceased, as they were married. 10. It is as against the determination of the above award by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation, contending that ‘14’ multiplier adopted is not correct and the appropriate multiplier, taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, which is said to be 50 years, would be ‘12’. No other point was urged by the counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants would rely upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (1) C.T.C.333 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. C. Santhamani) to say that once appropriate multiplier, is adopted and one-third deduction is made towards personal expenses, there is no need for further deduction towards uncertainty in life of the claimant. 12. However, in the present case, it is not disputed that the proper multiplier applicable on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased, a bachelor and earning member, will be ‘12’. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in respect of loss of income is set aside and the same is determined as follows: The income is determined at income at Rs.7,20,000/- (5,000 x 12 x 12) and after deducting one-third at Rs.2,40,000/- towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- is awarded as loss of income. 13. For loss of love and affection, the claimants 1 and 2 (father and mother of the deceased) are awarded Rs.10,000/- each. 14. 13. For loss of love and affection, the claimants 1 and 2 (father and mother of the deceased) are awarded Rs.10,000/- each. 14. The following amounts awarded by the Tribunal are confirmed: (a) for funeral expenses : Rs.6,000/- (b) for damage to vehicle : Rs.2,000/- (c) for transportation : Rs.1,000/- 15. The interest of 9% as awarded by the Tribunal, is confirmed. 16. Thus, the claimants 1 and 2 (the father and mother of the deceased) are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,09,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and nine thousand only) with 9% interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. C.M.P. is closed.