Madras High Court
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ... vs Poomalai, Minor Nallathambi, Minor ... on 7 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2008)1MLJ86
Author: R. Sudhakar
Bench: R. Sudhakar
JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J.
1. The Transport Corporation is on appeal against the award challenging the finding of negligence and also on the Quantum of compensation.
2. The accident in this case happened on 29.2.2000 at about 16.30 hours on the main road running between Keezhaorathur and Kolavi. At the time of accident, the deceased aged about 42 years was attending to the agricultural work on the side of the road and it is stated that Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-32-N-0689, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased and he died on the spot. The father of the deceased and four minor children are the claimants. The father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1. The First Information Report is Ex. P1. Ex. P2 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex. P3 is the Family Card. In the First Information Report-Ex. P1. it has been stated that on 29.2.2000, the deceased was doing agricultural operations on the side of the road. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased also stated that the accident happened on the side of the road when the deceased was engaged in agricultural operation. The Tribunal however came to hold that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation and held that the appellant Transport Corporation is liable to compensate the claimants.
3. As regards the quantum of compensation; the claimants stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/-, which was not. accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs. 1500/- After deduction a sum towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution was taken at Rs. 1000/- and adopting 18 multiplier, a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- was granted as loss of income to the claimants. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was granted for transportation and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. No amount was given for loss of love and affection. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that 18 multiplier was erroneously adopted and that there is an element of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, sought for modification of the award.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, who stated that in this case, the deceased was aged 30 years and at the time of his death he had three minor children to take care and his wife pre deceased him. As per Postmortem Certificate, the deceased was aged 42 years. He submitted that the accident in this case had happened in the year 2000 and the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 3000/-, as against the claim for Rs. 4000/- per month. He relied on the decision of this Court reported in B. Anandhi v. R. Latha and the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jusbir Kaur Reported in 2004 (1) L.W. 1. He also submitted that if Rs. 3000/- is taken as the monthly income the total loss of income to dependants, will be 2000 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 3,12,000/-. Therefore, the learned Counsel stated that the award is not appropriate and far less that what is due. He also stated that no amount has been awarded for loss of love and affection to the children.
6. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellant, even as per the claim petition and the FIR, the deceased was engaged in agricultural operation on the side of the road and the accident had happened. There is an element of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In view of the above evidence, the Tribunal should have accepted the appellant plea that the deceased has also contributed to the accident. The negligence on the part of deceased is not controverted and even as per the pleading, there is an element of contributory negligence. Therefore, the negligence is apportioned, as against the driver of the bus and the deceased at 70% and 30% respectively.
7. However, the plea of the counsel for the respondents/claimants that the lesser income has been taken in this case can be accepted in view of the two decisions cited above. The accident in this case happened in the year 2000. Therefore, if Rs. 3,12,000/- is tine loss of income to the dependants and if 30% negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased, the family of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 2,18,000 and the balance amount awarded by the tribunal can be adjusted towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, even if the stand of the appellant with regard to negligence is accepted and the compensation is arrived in the manner as stated above, the total compensation compensation arrived at by the Tribunal can be accepted as just and reasonable. Therefore, the award does not call for any modification: In these facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Before concluding the manner in which the fatal accident happened in this case calls for introspection by all concerned. The use of public road for agricultural operations has become a common feature across the country. The agriculturist deprived of the common threshing floor at village level are forced to come to the public road. The revenue authorities should ensure that common threshing floor which are available in each village should be freed from encroachment and made available to agriculturist. The agriculturist should be made to use the common threshing area and avoid public road. Similarly, the weekly village markets (Shandy), cattle market are held in public thoroughfare and it contributes to road accidents. It is causing (sic) congestion and affects free flow of traffic. The drivers of the vehicles are forced to wade though public road congested by human chain and due to the accident in most cases the liability falls on the insurance company or the transport department as the case may be. The authorities should take a serious view of the matter and enforce traffic rates and regulations. Public awareness should be created.
9. The loss of human life is treated like a withering flower with a fleeting remorse. The compensation given to the wife in despair wailing on the death of the breadwinner and to the child, cast way overnight is no justification for the colossal personal tragedy. The realisation is always after and when it pains.