Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1890 (MAD)

The Managing Director v. E. Renuka Devi & Others

2006-07-28

P.SATHASIVAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2003 made in MCOP.No.641 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court No.I) Coimbatore.) Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore dated 16.09.2003 made in MCOP.No.641 of 2000, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division III, Ooty, has filed this appeal. 2. In respect of death of one Elangovan in a road accident that took place on 28.11.1999, respondents 1 to 6 herein prayed for a compensation of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed an sum of Rs.3,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the same, Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that they are aggrieved only with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into that aspect. 4. It is seen from the evidence of PW.1, first claimant wife of the deceased that her husband was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. However, taking note of the reference made in the postmortem certificate Ex.P.4, the Tribunal he age of the deceased as 40. It is further seen that the first claimant is his wife, claimants 2 to 4 are children and 5 and 6 are parents. PW.1 in her evidence stated that her husband was doing business in cloth. In the absence of documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased, taking note of his age, the Tribunal has arrived a conclusion that it would be possible for him to earn at least Rs.3,000/- per month and after allowing deduction to the extent of Rs.1,000/- towards his person al expenses, fixed his monthly contribution to the family as Rs.2,000/-. By applying the multiplier 12, arrived a figure of Rs.2,88,000/- towards pecuniary loss to the family; after adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant/wife of the deceased; Rs.5,000/- each in favour of claimants 2 to 4/children and Rs.5,000/- each in favour of claimants 5 and 6, who are none else than his parents and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,28,000. Taking note of the age of the deceased and of the fact that he left a very large family, consisting of 3 children out of which two are minors and aged parents, I am of the view that the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable; on the other hand, the same is just and reasonable. Hence, this appeal fails sand the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP., is also dismissed.