(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and decree dated 11.08.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur, made in M.C.O.P.No.262 of 2013.)

R. Sudhakar, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State Transport Corporation.

2. The claimants has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur, made in M.C.O.P.No.262 of 2013.

3. It is a case of fatal accident. On 03.03.2013 at about 08.30 p.m., when the deceased Vijayakumar, aged about 33 years, was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-47-U-9796 on Pudukkotai-Trichy Main Road from South to North, on the extreme left side of the road opposite to the Sun Residency, the respondents bus bearing Registration No.TN-63-H.1239, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the two wheeler driven by the deceased due to which the deceased was thrown away and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Trichy, where he died due to accident injuries. A case was registered against the driver of the bus.

4. The deceased, on the date of accident, was working as Junior Executive (Manufacturing Services Department) in Cithar Vessels Limited, Dindigul Road, Trichy. The appellants, viz., the wife, daughter and parents, have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- as compensation.

5. In support of the claim, the first claimant, viz., the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Gurusamy, eye witness to the occurrence and Sathish Kumar, who was working as Supervisor in the Company where the deceased was working, were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and Exs.P-1 to P-19 were marked, the details of which are as follows:

Ex.P-1Xerox Copy of First Information Report

Ex.P-2Xerox Copy of Post-mortem certificate

Ex.P-3Xerox copy of the Death Certificate

Ex.P-4L.Rs. Certificate

Ex.P-5Original Pan Card

Ex.P-6Provisional Certificate - Diploma in Mechanical Engineering issued by State Board of Technical Education and Training, Department of Technical Education, Madras-600 025.

Ex.P-7Original B.E. Certificate - 1st Class in Mechanical Engineering issued by Vinayaka Missions University, Salem.

Ex.P-8Diploma Mart Sheets (5 Nos.) with Certificate (Original)

Ex.P-9B.E. Provisional Certificate (Original)

Ex.P-10B.E. Mark Sheets (6 Nos.) (Original)

Ex.P-11Xerox copy of Driving License on one Vijayakumar.

Ex.P-12Authorisation Letter

Ex.P-13Appointment details of deceased Vijayakumar

Ex.P-14Attendance Register

Ex.P-15Salary Slips

Ex.P-16R.W.1s employment details

Ex.P-17Xerox copy of M.V.I Report

Ex.P-18Xerox copy of Rough Sketch

Ex.P-19Xerox copy of Charge Sheet.

-

6. On the side of the respondent, one Govindaraj was examined as R.W.1 and one Thiru.Pandi was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.R-1 xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report was marked.

7. The Tribunal, based on the oral evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3 and also taking note of the corroborating evidence of P.W.2, eye witness to the occurrence, which has been adduced to prove that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and also taking into account the documentary evidence and further there being no satisfactory evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent to refute the eye witness testimony as to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus and, therefore, the liability was fixed on the respondent herein and consequently the respondent-Transport Corporation was directed to compensate the claimants. On this issue, learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation has no serious objection with regard to the finding of the Tribunal as no material has been placed to come to a different conclusion from that of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal.

8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:

Compensation for loss of dependencyRs.11,23,200/

Towards funeral expensesRs.10,000/

Towards loss of estateRs.40,000/

Towards Loss of Consortium (to 1st claimant)Rs.50,000/

Towards Loss of love & affection (2ndclaimant)Rs.20,000/

Towards travelling expensesRs.5,000/

Total compensation payable to the claimantsRs.12,48,200/





9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation is before this Court by filing this appeal.

10. The only point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Transport Corporation is that the income fixed is on the higher side, as admittedly, the deceased was working in the Company stated above and was not earning the amount as stated in the claim petition. They have not produced any proof showing the income of the deceased.

11. This Court has given its careful consideration to the above contentions advanced by either parties and also perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the respondent-Transport Corporation has not filed any appeal challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Though it is trite law that the income should be arrived at keeping in mind the avocation of the deceased, it is seen that the age of the deceased has been taken into account while deciding the multiplier to be adopted. However, taking into consideration the entire gamut of facts and also keeping in mind the fact that the deceased was working as Junior Executive in the said Company, and, therefore, notional income has to be fixed keeping in mind the cost of living index prevailing as on the date of the accident, this Court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. The future prospects of the deceased has also to be considered. Hence, a sum of Rs.22,500/- (Rs.15,000 + Rs.7,500/-) is fixed as monthly income of the deceased.

12. Accordingly, the loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased is fixed as Rs.32,40,000/- (Rs.22,500/- 3/4 x 12 x 16 = Rs.32,40,000/-). The sum of Rs.50,000/- granted towards loss of consortium to the wife is very low and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection to the minor child is also very low and the same is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. Further, no amount was granted towards loss of love and affection to the parents of the deceased. A sum of Rs.25,000/- each is granted towards loss of love and affection to the parents of the deceased. However, the sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards loss of estate is deleted.

13. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as hereunder:

Loss of Income (Monthly Income fixed at Rs.15,000/= and Future prospects fixed at 50% of monthly income Multiplier adopted is 16), i.e. 22,500 x 3/4 x 12 x16Rs.32,40,000/

Towards loss of consortium to the wifeRs.1,00,000/

Loss of Love & Affection to the children (a) Minor (b) parents (Rs.25,000/- each)Rs. 75,000/-Rs.50,000/

Funeral expenses and transportRs.15,000/

Total compensation awarded by this CourtRs. 34,80,000/





14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as follows:

(i) The award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.12,48,200/-Rs.34,80,000/-.

(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed.

(iii) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation seeks time to deposit the balance amount.

(iv) The respondent/Transport Corporation is granted eight weeks time to deposit the amount ordered by this Court.

(v) On such deposit being made, the wife of the deceased is entitled to withdraw 25% of the amount lying in deposit; parents of the deceased are entitled to withdraw 25% of the amount lying in deposit and the minor is entitled to the balance 50% of the amount lying in deposit.

(vi) the share of the minor shall be deposited in the name of the minor in any one of the Nationalised bank initially for a period of three years under reinvestment scheme, which shall be renewed periodically till the minor attains majority.

(vii) the mother of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the minors deposit once in three months directly from the bank.

(viii) Except the above modification, the award of the Tribunal in all other aspects stands confirmed.

(ix) There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.