Madras High Court
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs Sankarammal And Ors. on 8 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998ACJ1171
JUDGMENT S. Jagdeesan, J.
1. The Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. has filed an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai dated 12.2.1997 in M.C.O.P. No. 743 of 1995.
2. The respondents herein have filed the said claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one Pahlraj alias Kalappa Gounder, the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, the other respondents are the children.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 25.6.1994 at 8.00 p.m., the bus bearing registration No. TOP 4112, belonging to the appellant herein dashed against the deceased within the campus of Thirumangalam Bus Stand and due to impact the deceased died. Hence the claim petition has been filed. The claim was contested by the appellant herein contending that the deceased was trying to get into the bus when the bus was moving, in order to get a seat and in his attempt to get into the bus he slipped, fell down, and got injured. The driver of the bus drove the vehicle very slowly since the bus was entering into the bus depot. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver.
4. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal has found that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW 2 who is an independent witness as well as an eyewitness. A perusal of the award of the Tribunal clearly reveals that the evidence of PW 2 has not been challenged by the respondents. Though the appellant has contended that there is some discrepancy with regard to the deposition of the witness in the criminal case, to mark those documents and also the contradictions, neither the witnesses nor the Investigating Officer had been examined. Hence the Tribunal has rightly rejected those documents as well as the evidence. I do not see any reason to differ from the finding given by the Tribunal in respect of rash and negligent driving of the bus.
5. So far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- stating that the deceased was looking after the lands as well as the milk business by keeping 20 cattle. From the agriculture as well as milk vending business, he was getting Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per year and the monthly income is Rs. 3,500/-. Though the appellant has disputed the income of the deceased stating that there is no absolute evidence to establish that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3,500 per month, still the evidence of PW 1 in respect of the income, in the chief-examination, had not been challenged in the cross-examination. The Tribunal, however, arrived at Rs. 2,000/- per month as income of the deceased. From that 1/3 was deducted and loss has been assessed at Rs. 1,350/- per month. The Tribunal has adopted 15 years multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased which is 42.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised two contentions before this Court. One is the income of the deceased has not been established by any independent witness and the other is the 15 years multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is excessive. When the evidence of PW 1 in the chief-examination in respect of income of the deceased had not been challenged in the cross-examination there is nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal in accepting the evidence of PW 1. However, it cannot be expected that the claimants should establish the income of the deceased only by way of documentary evidence. When PW 1 has stated that the deceased was doing the milk vending business by keeping 20 cattle, it may be difficult to produce any documentary evidence in respect of income. If any insistence is made for the production of the documentary evidence, this will lead to procuring the receipts from third parties. It is highly impossible to accept those receipts also without examining the persons who issued the receipts. Considering all this, I am of the view that it may not be possible for the claimants to produce the documentary evidence in all the cases to establish the income of the deceased. Hence the Tribunal has accepted the evidence of PW 1 and there is no infirmity in the procedure followed by the Tribunal.
7. So far as the multiplier of 15 years adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, it is admitted that the deceased was aged about 42 years. The claimants are only the wife and the children. When the deceased was about 42 years, in all probabilities the maximum of 18 years multiplier fixed by the Supreme Court could have been followed and the Tribunal had taken a lenient approach and adopted only 15 years multiplier, which, I do not think, is unreasonable.
8. Apart from this, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral ceremony and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection. The compensation awarded under these three heads cannot be said to be excessive. For all the reasons, I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation by adopting normal procedure. Hence this award of the Tribunal is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 12373 of 1997 is also dismissed.