Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :
19. 06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR C.M.A.No.1826 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Division I, No.37, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore. ... Appellant ..vs..
1. Selvam 2. Jeyamarie 3. Pushparani 4. Anandhi 5. Vasanthi ... Respondents This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amended by M.V. (Amendment) Act, 1994, against the order and decreetal order dated 23.01.2004 made in MCOP.No.776 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court V), Tiruppur. For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrakala for M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil JUDGMENT
In the accident, which occurred on 22.06.2001, a 50 year old Office Assistant, working in the Office of Block Development Office, Pethappampatti, died, survived by his wife and daughters, who were married. According to the legal representatives, on 22.06.2001 about 6.15 hours, when their breadwinner was standing on the mud road, a Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-38-N-0691 driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, and he sustained grievous injuries. Despite treatment of five days, he succumbed to the injuries. For pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, they claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.
2. The Transport Corporation denied negligence on the part of its driver. However, from perusal of the counter affidavit filed in MCOP.No.776 of 2001 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirupur, it could be deduced that the Transport Corporation has admitted the accident, by stating that the alleged occurrence had taken place at Periyapatti, Udumalpet within the jurisdiction of Kudimangalam Police Station. As to the manner of the accident, the Transport Corporation has contended that the vehicle was on its trip from Udumalpet to Tiruppur and at 6.15 a.m, though the vehicle was driven slowly, a minor boy suddenly crossed the road, without seeing the vehicle. In order to avoid hitting the boy, the bus was swerved on the right side. Two elderly persons standing on the right side of the road ran helter-skelter and they fell down on the firewood, stored in front of a tea shop and thus, sustained injuries. Thus, the Transport Corporation has disputed the manner of the accident. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.
3. Before the Claims Tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the manner of the accident. PW.2 is stated to be the eye witness. PW.3 is another witness examined on behalf of the respondent/claimant. Ex.P1-Copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P2- Copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, Ex.P3-Copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.P4-Copy of the Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P5-Death Certificate, Ex.P6-Copy of the legal heir certificate, Ex.P7-Salary Certificate, Ex.P8-Copy of Salary Register, Ex.P9-Copy of Attendance Register and Ex.P10-Copy of Service Register have been marked. RW.1 driver has adduced evidence to the effect that to avert the accident, he swerved the vehicle to the right side of the road and two old men, who stood there, ran helter-skelter and dashed against the bus and thereafter, fell on the firewood. It is his further evidence that he had admitted the injured, in the hospital and then, lodged a First Information Report in the concerned police station. He has also deposed that a report was given to the Management. However, testimony of RW.1, as regards submission of a report to the higher authorities, is not supported by production of any documentary evidence. But the witness has clearly admitted that there was a domestic enquiry against him. He has not filed the report of such domestic enquiry held against him.
4. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that RW.1/driver of the Transport Corporation bus was negligent in causing the accident. Though the said finding was assailed, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, as no perversity can be attributed.
5. On the quantum of compensation, based on Ex.P7-Salary Certificate, Ex.P8-Salary Register, Ex.P9- Attendance Register, Ex.P10 Service Register, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 55 years, and the monthly income as Rs.6,123/- for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. Adopting 8 multiplier, the Claims Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd towards the permanent living expenses of the deceased, computed the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.3,91,872/-. In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- each, under the head loss of love and affection and loss of consortium respectively. For the children, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- (at Rs.5,000/- each) under the head, loss of love and affection. For funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.4,33,872/-. Though M/s.T.Chandrakala, learned counsel for the Transport Corporation contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying a higher multiplier '8' when the deceased had only three years of remaining service in Government Service, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission for the reasons that in Sarla Verma Case reported in (2009) 6 SCC121the Hon'ble Supreme Court has standardised the multiplier. Therefore, compensation awarded to the legal representatives cannot be said to be grossly excessive and therefore, award dated 23.01.2004 made in MCOP.No.776 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court V), Tiruppur, is sustained.
6. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount, if not already deposited, with costs and with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of MCOP.No.776 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court V), Tiruppur, within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 5 / claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share, as apportioned by the Tribunal, with proportionate interest and costs, by making necessary applications.
7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 19.06.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mra To: The Presiding Officer Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court V) Tiruppur S.MANIKUMAR,J.
mra C.M.A.No.1826 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 19.06.2014