Madras High Court
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ... vs Mary, Minor Inikko And Minor Maria Kensy on 5 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)ACC394, 2005(5)CTC515
JUDGMENT K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
Page 2230
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sivagangai, in M.C.O.P. No. 179 of 2000 by the State Transport Corporation.
2. The claimants/respondents in the appeal contended before the Tribunal that the deceased Innasi died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.3.2000 at about 7.30 hours at Melur-Madurai Main Road. The deceased was walking along the extreme left side of the road carrying wooden logs and was proceeding towards west from east at Vellaripatty in front of Prabu's workshop on Madurai-Melur Main Road. At that time, the vehicle belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing Registration No. TN 59-N-1096 came from behind in a reckless speed and dashed against the deceased. The driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained injuries all over the body and he was admitted at Melur Government Hospital. Subsequently, he was referred to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. However, subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.
3. The claimants contended that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus. They further contended that he was employed as a loadman earning about Rs. 150/- per day and he was the sole bread-winner of the family. As a result of his death, the claimants have lost their only support in their life. A total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- was prayed for.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellant Corporation, both the manner of the accident as well as the quantum as claimed by the respondents were disputed. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by its driver at only a moderate speed and by complying with all the traffic regulations. The accident had occurred only due to the deceased having suddenly crossed the road by keeping a bunch of firewood on his head. Therefore, the Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation. There was also no proof of the income of the deceased.
5. The Tribunal held that the driver of the Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and a total sum of Rs. 2,14,500/- was awarded as compensation. Hence, the above appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the age of the deceased was certified as 50, the Tribunal had calculated the compensation by fixing the age of the deceased as 41. There was also no evidence to show that the deceased was employed as a loadman. The total amount of Rs. 2,14,500/- awarded as compensation was on the higher side.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Page 2231
8. As regards negligence, the Tribunal had taken note of the oral evidence as well as the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector-Ex.A5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal relating to negligence.
9. As regards compensation, the appellant is aggrieved by the assessment of the age of the deceased at 41. The age of the deceased had been assumed to be 41 on the basis of the birth certificate/certificate issued by the Church at the time of anointing of the deceased on 25.7.1959. As against the said material, the appellant seeks to rely on the post mortem certificate fixing the age at 50. It is needless to mention that the age fixed under the post mortem certificate cannot be stated to be an accurate age and the same could be referred to only in the absence of any other material. When a contemporaneous birth certificate is issued under Ex.A3 disclosing the age of the deceased as 41, there is no justification to reject the said certificate. On the basis of the said certificate, the multiplier of 15 has been properly adopted.
10. With reference to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and held that the deceased was working as loadman and on the basis of a reasonable fixation of Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income, after deducting one-third for personal expenses, the Tribunal has rightly fixed Rs. 1,000/- as monthly contribution to the family and arrived at Rs. 1,80,000/- towards total compensation. To the said amount, further amounts have been added for funeral expenses and loss of love and affection.
Therefore, on overall consideration, we are inclined to hold that the amounts awarded as compensation by the Tribunal cannot be stated to be excessive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Connected C.M.P. No. 4794 of 2005 is also dismissed.