Madras High Court
I.S.Subbulakshmi Alias Shanthi vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... on 29 November, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/11/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A(MD) No.1219 of 2007 1.I.S.Subbulakshmi alias Shanthi 2.Minor.I.S.Iswariya (Minor 2nd Appellant is represented by her mother and next friend) .. Appellants vs 1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli - 3, Rep. By its Managing Director. 2.Mudisoodumperumal Nadar 3.Chinna Thangam 4.Mahalakshmi 5.Minor.Padmapriya .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2000, dated 11.11.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. !For Appellant ... Mr.T.Selvakumaran ^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Prakash for R1 No Appearance for R2 to R5 :JUDGMENT
The appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.1219 of 2007, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2000, on the file of the motor accident claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the (deceased) Ayyasamy have filed a claim in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2000, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Ayyasamy, who died due to injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 23.11.1999, when the (deceased) Ayyasamy was riding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-74-8580 from VallanKumaran Vilai towards Vadalivilai, on the Tirunelveli-Nagercoil main road and at 07.00 p.m., when he was nearing Mupanthal Jaimatha College, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-72N-0868, coming on the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the (deceased) Ayyasamy. In the impact, the (deceased) Ayyasamy died on the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus by the Aralvaimozhi police station in Crime No.799 of 1999, under section 304(A) of IPC. At the time of accident, the (deceased) was aged 31 years and employed as a driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, the 1st petitioner, namely the wife of the deceased, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased and the 4th and 5th petitioners, who are the un-married sisters of the deceased have filed the claim against the respondent namely Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli.
3. The respondent in his counter has submitted that the driver of the bus drove the bus carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and that the (deceased) Ayyasamy had negligently overtaken three lorries going ahead of him and dashed against the respondents bus. The allegations in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of deceased was also not admitted. It was stated that the claim was excessive.
4. The motor accident claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's bus driver?; (2) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to get?
5. On the petitioners side, three witnesses were examined and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5 namely: Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R dated 23.11.1999; Ex.P2-copy of charge sheet dated 26.04.2000; Ex.P3-copy of post mortem report; Ex.P4-pass port of deceased; Ex.P5-Savings bank pass book of PW.3 pertaining to his account at State Bank of Travancore, Valliyoor. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and no documents were marked.
6. PW.2, Mahalingam, had adduced evidence that on 23.11.1999, at about 07.00 p.m., when he was riding his motorcycle from Vallavan Kumaravelai towards Vadalivilai and when he was nearing Jaimatha Engineering College, Muppantahl on the Nagercoil-Tirunelveli main road, he had seen the (deceased) Ayyasamy riding his TVS-motorcycle on the left side of the road and that at that fine the respondent's bus coming from Northon the Tenkasi to Nagercoil road and driven by its driver at a high speed had dashed against the (deceased) Ayyasamy and that the (deceased) Ayyasamy had died on the spot. He deposed that he and one samy, who had come behind him had given a complaint at the Aaralvaimozhi police station. He deposed that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the respondent's bus driver.
7. RW.1, Esaki, the driver of the respondent's bus adduced evidence that when was driving the bus near the Jaimatha Engineering College, he had seen three lorries coming one behind the other, on the opposite direction and that the (deceased) Ayyasamy had suddenly crossed the road, coming in front of the bus and had dashed against the front right side of the bus. He had deposed that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the (deceased) Ayyasamy.
8. PW.1, Subbulakshmi, the wife of the deceased had also adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of her evidence, she had marked Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet. The Tribunal on considering evidence of PW.2, the eyewitness of the accident and the documents marked as Exs.P1 and P2 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's bus driver.
9. On scrutiny of Ex.P4-pass port, it is seen that the date of birth of (deceased) Ayyasamy had been mentioned as 04.02.1969. Hence, the Tribunal held that the age of the deceased was 31 years at the time of accident.
10. PW.3, the mother of the deceased had deposed that her son was working as a driver in Saudi Arabia and had been working there for eight years and was sending her a monthly amount of Rs.10,000/-. She deposed, that she had deposited the money sent by her son in a bank and in support of her evidence, she had marked as Ex.P5, Pass book. However, the Tribunal, on considering that no documents regarding of details the salary earned by the (deceased) had been furnished and no documents were let into prove that the money deposited in the account had been remitted from Saudi Arabia, held that the nominal income of the deceased Ayyasamy could be taken as only Rs.70/- per day. Hence, the Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 16, as was relevant to the age of the deceased, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,68,800/-(Rs.70/-x30x2/3x12x16) to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,80,800/- to the petitioners compensation and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation within four weeks from the date of its order.
11. Not being satisfied by the award granted by the Tribunal, the petitioners namely the wife of the (deceased) Ayyasamy and her minor child, I.S.Iswariya have preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected Ex.P5, as it is clearly shows that the deceased sent money from Saudi Arabia to State Bank of Tirunelveli Branch, Valliyoor. It was pointed out that the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier as '16' instead of '17'. It was contended that the deceased had sent Rs.10,000/- every month to his mother through State Bank of Travancore, Valliyoor Branch and hence his income should have been taken only as Rs.10,000/- per month and assessed the compensation as Rs.20,40,000/- (Rs.10,000/-x12x17). Hence, it was prayed to enhance the award amount and grant an additional compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
12. The learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation submitted that the occupation of the deceased was not proved and there was no earning proof. The parents of the deceased were not depending upon the income of the deceased. In the absence of relevant records, the Tribunal had awarded adequate compensation to the claimants.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the claimants are 6 in numbers and as such only 1/4th of the deceased income should have been deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,100/- per month, which is on the lower side.
14. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation to the claimants. Therefore, this Court assesses the compensation as follows: The income of the deceased is fixed by this Court as Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- (RS.3,000/-x12x1/4x3x16) under the head of loss of income; Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of consortium to the 1st claimant is confirmed; Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses; Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 6. In total, this Court awards Rs.4,72,000/- as compensation to the claimants as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. After deducting original compensation of a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- this Court grants an additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-. This additional amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till date of payment. This Court directs the 1st respondent/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation as per this Courts findings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
15. From the additional compensation, the 1st claimant is entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- with proportionate interest, the 2nd and 3rd claimants are entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- each with proportionate interest; 4th claimant is entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- with proportionate interest; 5th claimant is entitled to receive Rs.30,000/- with proportionate interest and the 6th claimant is entitled to receive Rs.72,000/- with proportionate interest. After such deposit is made, it is open to all the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. The 6th claimant namely Iswarya is permitted to withdraw her apportioned share amount after she attains the age of a major. Till such time, her apportioned share amount shall be deposited in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit in cumulative deposit scheme.
16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2000, dated 11.11.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, is modified. No costs.
ub To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli,
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.