Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1155 (MAD)

Managing Director v. M. Venkatachalam

2014-06-05

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. In the accident, which occurred on 18.03.2000, one Pavadai, aged about 20 years, stated to be a Cleaner, died in a collision between a State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-01M-6399 and a Tractor, bearing Registration No.TN-32-0736. Parents have claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Though the Transport Corporation has opposed the claim contending inter alia that the driver of the bus was not negligent, in causing the accident, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus was negligent. 2. While adverting to the above, the Claims Tribunal has found that the oral testimony of PW1, father, was duly supported by PW3, an eye witness and also corroborated by Ex.P.1-First Information Report in Crime No.167 of 2000 registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus on the file of Vikiravandi Police Station. Even RW1, driver, has admitted that the police has registered a case against him and that he did not prefer any complaint against the Tractor driver. Testing the finding on the principles of preponderance of probability, it cannot be said to be perverse. 3. On the quantum of compensation, based on Ex.P.6-Salary Certificate, issued by Mr. Sampath Kumar, Engineering Contractor and P.S. Lorry Service and having regard to the fact that the death occurred, while the deceased was travelling in the Tractor, bearing Registration No.TN-32-0736, fixing the monthly income as Rs.2,100/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal, by applying 13' multiplier, applicable to the age of the mother, computed the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.2,18,400/-. In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-each under the head loss of love and affection and Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses. Altogether the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,31,400/- as compensation with interest @ 9% from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. The Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier, applicable to the age of the deceased. There is an apparent error. 4. Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that challenge in this appeal is only to the quantum of compensation. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record. Parents have claimed that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 20 years. There is an apparent error. 4. Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that challenge in this appeal is only to the quantum of compensation. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record. Parents have claimed that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 20 years. Compensation of Rs.2,31,400/- awarded to the parents for the death of their son, cannot be said to be grossly excessive or a bonanza, warranting interference. Hence, quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants, is sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant -Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1031 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount, as apportioned by the Claims Tribunal, by making necessary applications.