Madras High Court
Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs M. Anbumani And Ors. on 23 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ1086
Author: S.R. Singharavelu
Bench: S.R. Singharavelu
JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.
1. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, has preferred the above appeal being aggrieved by the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 2141 of 1993.
2. The respondent No. 1 wife and the respondent No. 5 mother of the deceased Mahalingam filed the M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 2141 of 1993 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- by way of compensation on the basis that while the deceased was walking at the junction of Purasawalkam High Road and Bricklin Road, the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. TML 3831 came from north to south on Bricklin Road at a very high speed and driven in a negligent manner and took a left turn towards the Purasawalkam High Road and in that process, it hit against the deceased, who died on the way to hospital.
3. The Corporation resisted the said claim on the grounds, namely, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver in driving the bus and secondly, the compensation claimed is alarmingly on the higher side.
4. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rashness in driving of the bus by its driver and also because of his negligence. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal fixed at Rs. 2,85,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Corporation has preferred the above appeal putting forth two submissions, namely, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and in any event, the amount fixed is very much on the higher side.
5. As far as the first issue is concerned, namely, as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, we have the evidence of two witnesses who have been examined on the side of the claimants and one witness on the side of the Corporation. We carefully examined the oral testimonies of those witnesses and we are satisfied that the Tribunal has arrived at a correct conclusion. We have no reason to set aside the same and accordingly, we confirm the said finding. So far as the quantum is concerned, admittedly the deceased was a Grade I Police Constable and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,248/- per month. The claimants are wife, mother and also the three minor children. Of course, these minor children have now attained majority. Adopting the unit method, out of the said sum of Rs. 2,248/-, 2/9th share of the deceased has to be deducted and in which event, we arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,750/-which would represent the monthly contribution to the claimants. That has to be multiplied by 12 to get the yearly figure and again, to be multiplied by 15 multiplier, in which event, we reach a figure of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Sic. Rs. 3,15,000/-). We have to add another Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. But whereas, what has been awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs. 2,85,000/-.
6. It is unfortunate that the claimants have not filed cross-objections. But at the same time, it is not as if this court is helpless and this court can certainly invoke its powers conferred under Order 41, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the court in deciding these matters, should remember that the compensation awarded should not be inadequate, neither should be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. In this case, this court is of the view that the compensation that has been fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
7. We fix the compensation payable to claimants at Rs. 3,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the petition. The respondents-claimants shall be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 85,000/- with proportionate interest on payment of court-fee. Time to pay court-fee is three months from today.