Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs Rukmani and Others

Somasundaram, J.—The respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge),

Thanjavur is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 are the respondents in this civil

miscellaneous appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983.

The petitioners filed M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Thanjavur claiming a

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the death of the deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar. The case of the petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 is

as follows : The first petitioner is the wife, the petitioners 2 and 4 are the sons, the third petitioner is the daughter and the fifth petitioner is the

grandson (daughter''s son) of the deceased, Chandrasekaran Chettiar. The deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar along with his brother-in-law were

standing and talking in the pavement just by the southern side of Ramanathan Chettiar Hall, Hospital Road, Thanjavur, at about 4.30 P.M. on

23.11.1981. At that time, the respondent''s bus No. TMN 4042 which was coming from west to the east from Vaduvoor in route No. 21, came

and dashed against the deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar, as a result of which the deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar was knocked down and he

died on the spot The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Jayapal without sounding horn. The deceased, at

the time of the accident, was 67 years. But for the accident the deceased would have lived upto the age of 90 and his sudden death has caused

great mental agony and suffering to the petitioners. The deceased was carrying on business in paddy, maligai etc, at Thiruthuraipoondi at the time of

the accident. He has also been managing his own lands of 15.80 acres and the lands of others totalling 27.21 acres. The monthly income of the

deceased was Rs. 4,500 and he has been assessed to an annual income of Rs. 55,820 for the assessment year 1979-90.

The respondent filed a counter in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 contending that the accident was not due to the rashness or negligence of the driver

of the bus and the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

The tribunal, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent act on the part

of the driver of the bus in which the victim in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983, Chandrasekaran Chettiar, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

With regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the age of the deceased at the time of his death

was 67 and the appropriate multiplier that has to be applied in this case is ''6''. The Tribunal further founded that the exclusive contribution of the

deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar to the family could be reasonably fixed at Rs. 1,000 per month and his annual contribution to the family would

come to Rs. 12,000. Applying 6 as multiplier, the Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation payable by the respondent to the petitioners at Rs.

72,000 and accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 72,000 in favour of the petitioners with proportionate costs against the

respondent with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

Aggrieved by the said award of the Claims Tribunal the respondent has filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

Mr. Subbiah, learned Counsel for the respondent/appellant, confined his submissions only to the quantum of compensation. Learned Counsel

submitted when the deceased was 67 years old on the date of the accident and the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier at 6. Further, learned

Counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of Rs. 72,000 without deducting anything for lump sum payment. In T.V.

Gnanavelu and Another Vs. D.P. Kannayya and Others, this Court has taken the view that compensation can be awarded fixing the normal life of

the individuals at 70or 75 and in view of the above decision the Tribunal is correct in fixing the multiplier at 6 in this case. But, there is considerable

force in the contention of the learned Counsel that the Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of Rs. 72,000 without deducting any amount for

making a lump sum payment. We are of the opinion that since the petitioners are being paid a lump sum a deduction on that account at the rate of

30% would be reasonable. If 30% deduction is made for lump sum payment, the petitioners will be entitled to only Rs. 50,400 byway of

compensation for the death of Chandrasekaran Chettiar. Thus we modify the award made by the Tribunal by reducing the quantum of

compensation payable to the petitioners to Rs. 50,400 with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.