(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.55 of 2008 dated 02.04.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai.)

One Bommiammal @ Muthupillai Ammal, aged 50 years, an agriculture coolie, earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, died in an accident that took place on 27.05.2007. In respect of the death, her husband, sons and daughters have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

2. The Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed before it, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adopting the multiplier of 11, quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.2,64,000/-. A finding has been given that the married sons and daughters would not have been the dependant upon the deceased, hence, there will be a loss of income only for her husband and not in respect of the other claimants.

3. Awarding a sum of (a)Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, (b)Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, (c)Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, (d)Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation has been quantified at Rs.3,42,000/-. The break up details are as follows:

Loss of dependency: (25% x Rs.2000/-)Rs.2,64,000.00

Loss of love and affectionRs. 50,000.00

Medical expensesRs. 20,000.00

Transport expensesRs. 5,000.00

Funeral expensesRs. 3,000.00

TotalRs.3,42,000.00





3.1. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as there was no material to link the death and the injury sustained, the award of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is not sustainable. It is pointed out that the Consumer Court has given a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor and this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal would go to show that Bommiammal @ Muthupillai Ammal (deceased) had been in continuous treatment for a period of three months. She has taken treatment not only in the Government Hospital but also in the private hospital. Medical bills have also been filed to support that she has been taking continuous treatment. Considering the fact that the deceased had been taking treatment for three months, the medical expense has been awarded at Rs.20,000/-.

6. When there had been injury on account of the accident and the accident is admitted and when there is proof to show that till her death, she was in continuous treatment, the inference is that death is on account of the injuries sustained. There is no contra evidence to show that the death was not on account of injuries sustained. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal is right in awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency and the compensation awarded under the other heads.

7. Insofar as married sons and daughters are concerned, in the presence of the mother, they may not be entitled to compensation on account of loss of dependency. They are entitled to compensation on account of loss to estate. Therefore, rightly the Claims Tribunal considered the award of compensation to them under the head of loss of love and affection.

8. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award of compensation, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the respondents/claimants will be permitted to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.