Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Poonjolai on 21 November, 2014
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.11.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
C.M.A.No.3271 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Bharathipuram,
Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri. Appellant.
Vs
1. Poonjolai
W/o Late Uthrakumar
2. Minor Deepika Shri,
D/o Late Uthrakumar
3. Minor Keerthiga,
D/o Late Uthrakumar
Minors represented by their next friend
and mother Poonjolai
4. Boopathy ..Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, against the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned District Judge, Special Court for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, made in MCOP.No.79 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Mr.V.Vijayakumar for R1 to R3
JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.) By consent of both parties, the matter is taken up and disposed of, at the admission stage itself.
2. Being aggrieved by the award, dated 28.03.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Special Court for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in the claim case in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2013, whereby, the claim petition, filed by the respondents was allowed and a compensation of Rs.25,21,000/-, was awarded, directing the Transport Corporation to pay the award amount together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of one month, against which, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The short facts of the case are that on 31.12.2011, at about 08.05 p.m, when the deceased was proceeding on the extreme side of the road on Tiruvannamalai to Uthangarai Main Road, near Uthangarai at Ambedkar Nagar, a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation came behind the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and first hit, one Velen, who was pushing a motor cycle, and crushed his head and in the same speed, without stopping, the said bus, hit behind the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital after few hours.
4. The appellant/ Transport Corporation is aggrieved only against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ Transport Corporation urged that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- per month when there is no evidence placed on record to substantiate the avocation and the monthly income of the deceased. He further contended that taking into consideration the number of dependants, namely three persons, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/5th towards personal expenses. He also contended that the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that the future prospects are not permitted to be added in respect of self-employed person.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants submitted that taking into consideration that the deceased was working as a helper in a lathe company, the income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/-. He further submitted that the deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses is just and reasonable, considering the claimants 2 and 3, who are minor daughters. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that in respect of future prospects is concerned, after the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2009 ACJ 1298(SC) (Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation), the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Malik vs. Kiran Paul 2009 ACJ 1924 (SC) has permitted the future prospects to be taken into consideration even in respect of death of minor daughter. In the recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Radhika Gupta vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2010 ACJ 758 (SC), the Honourable Apex Court has awarded as sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for future prospects in respect of self employed person.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The deceased was working as a technician in a lathe work shop. Following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Gupta vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2010 ACJ 758 (SC), and R.K.Malik vs. Kiran Paul 2009 ACJ 1924 (SC) and also a recent decision in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013(3) CTC 883(SC) wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that even in the case of self employed persons, there shall be addition of amount for future prospects, we deem it appropriate to fix the income at Rs.7,500/- per month, as determined by the Tribunal. Thus, his annual income would be Rs.90,000/-. Since there are three dependants, following the principle laid down in Sarla Verma's case, 1/3rd is to be deducted from the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses. As such the loss of income would come to Rs.60,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of accident, as per Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier of 17 is applied to Rs.60,000/- and accordingly, a total loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.10,20,000/-(60000 x 17). Besides this, as the first respondent had lost her husband at the young age, she is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is maintained. An amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards transport expenses is also maintained. In so far as the funeral expenses is concerned, as per the the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013(3) CTC 883(SC)), we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.25,21,000/-, is reduced to Rs.14,50,000/- as under:
Sl.No. Category Award Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.10,20,000/-2
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-3
Transport charges Rs.5,000/-3
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-4
Loss of love and affection Rs.3,00,000/-
Total Rs.14,50,000/-
9. In the result, The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge, Special Court for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in MACT.O.P.No. 79 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013, is hereby modified by awarding a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- instead of Rs.25,21,000/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum on the modified sum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
The Respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation, together with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, before the Tribunal to the credit of MACT.O.P.No. 79 of 2013 on the file of learned District Judge. Special Court for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On such deposit, the 1st claimant/ wife of the deceased/1st respondent herein, is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-, the 2nd and 3rd claimants/minor daughters of the deceased/ 2nd and 3rd respondents herein are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- each and the 4th respondent/mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-. The share of the minors / 2nd and 3rd claimants shall be invested in any one of the nationalized bank till they attain majority. The 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest from the share of the minor claimants once in three months directly from the Bank.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this Appeal. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.
[M.J.J.] [ A.J.J.]
21.11.2014
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
vsi
To:
1.The Subordinate Judge ,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Kanchipuram
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
M.JAICHANDREN, J.
AND
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
vsi
CMA.No.3271 of 2014
21.11.2014