Madras High Court
The Managing Director Metropolitan ... vs K. Murugesan 2. M. Navamani on 21 November, 2013
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar, Pushpa Sathyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21 11 2013
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
and
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3253 of 2013
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2013
and
Cross Objection No. 115 of 2012
C.M.A. No. 3253 of 2013:-
The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Chennai ... Appellant
vs.
1. K. Murugesan 2. M. Navamani ... Respondents
Cross Objection No. 115 of 2012:-
1. K. Murugesan 2. M. Navamani ... Cross Appellants vs. The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Chennai ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No. 3529 of 2008 dated 02.02.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Fast Track Court III, Chennai.
Cross Objection is filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of C.P.C. against the decree and judgment in M.C.O.P. No. 3529 of 2008 dated 02.02.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Fast Track Court III, Chennai.
*****
For Appellant : Mr. K. Natarajan
For Respondents : Mr. S. Vadivel
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.) Aggrieved by the Award dated 02.02.2012 in M.C.O.P. No. 3529 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Fast Track Court III, Chennai, awarding compensation of Rs.18,55,000/- for the death of deceased Raja in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.09.2008, this appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.
2. Brief facts are that on 15.09.2008, at about 10.30 am, the deceased Raja was travelling with his colleague, Sheshashalam, as pillion rider in Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-02 AD 6301 from North to South direction along Sivasailam Road towards his office at V.N. Road. While the motorcycle reached the Junction of T.Nagar Habibullah Road and Sivasailam Road, the Appellant Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-01 N 2305 was driven by its driver in East West direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motorcyclist. Due to the impact, the pillion rider Raja sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries on the way to Hospital. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation, the parents of the deceased filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-.
3. Resisting the Claim Petition, the appellant Transport Corporation has filed counter stating that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The Transport Corporation denied the income and monthly contribution to the family of the deceased and stated that the compensation claimed is excessive.
4. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the rider of the Motorcycle Mr.Sheshashalam, eye-witness as P.W.2. Exs. P.1 to P.22 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.P.1 - Copy of the Complaint Ex.P.2 - Copy of the FIR Ex.P.3 - Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.4 - Death Certificate Ex.P.5 - Legal heirship Certificate Ex.P.6 - Deceaseds Mark sheet Ex.P.7 - Deceaseds Higher Secondar Mark sheet Ex.P.8 - Deceaseds B.E. Degree examination consolidated statement of marks Ex.P.9 - Jeppiar Engineering College course completion certificate Ex.P.10 - Deceaseds Transfer Certificate Ex.P.11 - Deceaseds Provisional Certificate Ex.P.12 - Certificate issued by Goethe Institute Max Mueller Bhavan, Chennai for undergoing German Language Course to deceased Raja Ex.P.13 - Appointment letter from Wipro Technologies Ex.P.14 - E-mail message to deceased Raja by Wipro Technologies Ex.P.15 - Letter of employment from Adecco Company to deceased Raja Ex.P.16 - True copy of Transfer Certificate of 2nd Petitioner Ex.P.17 - Education details of deceased Raja Ex.P.18 - Copy of driving licence of PW2 Ex.P.19 - PW2s True copy of degree certificate Ex.P.20 - PW2s appointment letter from Hot Course India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.P.21 - PW2s identity card issued by Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. Ex.P.22 - PW2s Salary Certificate
5. On the side of appellant Transport Corporation, one Mr.Thirugnana Sambantham was examined as R.W.1 but no document was marked.
6. Considering the evidence of P.W. 2 - Eye witness and Ex. P.1-Complaint and Ex. P.2 - FIR, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants.
7. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- and after deducting 50% of his income towards personal living expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal calculated the contribution to the family as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and since the deceased was a bachelor, considering the age of the parents of the deceased, applying multiplier "15", Tribunal calculated the loss of income at Rs.18,00,000/- (1,20,400 X 15). In addition, the Tribunal awarded compensation under conventional heads as follows with interest at 7.5% per annum:
Sl.No. Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income Rs.18,00,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs.18,55,000/- Feeling aggrieved, Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.
8. In this appeal, negligence and quantum of compensation are challenged by the Transport Corporation before this Court.
9. The claimants have also filed Cross Objection questioning the quantum of compensation.
10. The points that arise for consideration before this Court are:-
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is correct?
(iii) To what relief the claimants are entitled to?
11. Heard the rival contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation as well as the Claimants/ Cross Objectors and perused the documents.
Point No.1:
12. The deceased Raja was travelling in a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 01 N 2305 as pillion rider driven by one Sheshashalam on 15.9.2008 from North to South direction along Sivsailam Road towards their office at V.N. Road. From the Junction of T. Nagar Habibullah Road and Sivasailam Road, the Motorcyclists were about to cross the road, all of a sudden, with a great speed, the bus belonging to appellant Transport Corporation was driven rashly and negligently from East to West direction and dashed the Motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased Raja suffered grievous injuries and while being shifted to the hospital, on the way, he died. The Transport Corporation denied their negligence and attributed the same to the Motorcyclist.
13. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 had deposed that it was the driver of the Respondent Corporation bus, who was coming in a great speed in a reckless manner, hit the deceased having lost control of the vehicle. Due to the impact, the deceased Raja sustained head injury and died on the way to Hospital. Though the driver of the Appellant Transport Corporation has been examined as R.W.1 who deposed that only the rider of the motorcycle was at fault, there is no other evidence to support the same either oral or documentary. On the other hand, the deposition of the eye-witness is supported by Ex.P.1, copy of the complaint and Ex.P.2 copy of the FIR, a perusal of which clearly indicate that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Appellant Transport Corporation. Hence, we conclude that the accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Appellant Transport Corporation bus and confirm the finding of the Tribunal.
14. As regards quantum of compensation, the parents of the deceased had claimed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- against which the Tribunal had granted only Rs.18,55,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred Cross Objection No. 115 of 2013.
15. While deciding the quantum of compensation, the three aspects which have to be seen are the age of the deceased, income of the deceased and the number of dependants.
16. It is not in dispute that the deceased Raja was an Engineering Graduate, which is evidenced by his Degree Certificate Exs. P.9 and P.10. Ex.P.13 reveals that the deceased was offered an appointment in one of the I.T. majors Wipro Technologies. Based on the above Exhibits, the Tribunal had arrived at his income at Rs.20,000/- per month and after deducting 50% towards his personal and living expenses, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. By adopting 15 multiplier the Tribunal fixed the loss of income to the deceased parents at a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-. Further, the Tribunal added Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is now under challenge.
17. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation canvassed that the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards loss of income is excessive, he could not sustain the same with a concrete evidence. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Cross Objectors, viz., the claimants have pointed out that even presuming that the monthly income fixed at Rs.20,000/- is excessive, the Tribunal omitted to add 50% towards future prospects considering the age and status of the deceased, that is, the deceased being a bachelor. As the deceased was a bachelor, = of the income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses from a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, even assuming that the loss of income to the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month, adding 50% towards future prospects, it would be Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the annual loss of income would be Rs.15,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,80,000/- which is considered to be the contribution to the family.
18. Now, having regard to the age of the deceased and the period of his active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. The Tribunal had taken the multiplier as 15 considering the age of the dependant, viz., mother. However, in terms of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, Sarla Verma vs. DTC, the proper multiplier would be 18 for the age group between 21 to 25 years. Therefore, in this case, as the deceased was 21 years, the loss of dependency can be calculated as Rs.15,000/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.32,40,000/-.
19. As regards funeral expenses, the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.5,000/- whereas the claimants are making a claim based on Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 as per which, Rs.25,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses. On the head of loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/-, which is in the opinion of this Court, is very meagre and we are inclined to grant Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1 lakh each) to the aged parents.
20. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced as follows:-
Sl.No. Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of income Rs.18,00,000/-
Rs.32,40,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs.18,55,000/- Rs.34,65,000/-
There is no dispute in respect of the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
21. Point No. 3:-
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3253 of 2013 preferred by the Transport Corporation is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
The Cross Objection No. 115 of 2013 filed by the Claimants is allowed as follows:-
(i) The Award of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.34,65,000/- from Rs.18,55,000/-.
(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed.
(iii) By order dated 31.10.2013, it is recorded that a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- has been deposited in the M.C.O.P.3529 before the Tribunal, Hence, the appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance award amount as ordered by this court within eight weeks from today.
(iv) On such deposit the claimants are entitled to withdraw their share as apportioned hereunder:-
The first claimant father Rs.14,65,000/-
The second claimant mother Rs.20,00,000/-
(v) There will be no order as to costs in this Cross Objection.
(vi) Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S., J.) (P.SN., J.)
21 11 2013
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
gri
R.SUDHAKAR, J.
and
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
(gri)
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court III Chennai.
Judgment in
C.M.A. No. 3253 of 2013
&
Cross Obj. No. 115 of 2013
21 11 2013