AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kirubakaran, J.—The appeal has been preferred by the Appellants for enhancement of the award granted by the Tribunal from Rs.
4,60,000 as against their claim of Rs. 20,00,000.
The case of the Appellants before the Tribunal was that one V. Marimuthu died in the accident occurred on 6.4.1997 when he was riding his
motor cycle, it was hit from behind by the bus belonging to the Respondent Corporation. According to the Appellants the deceased was aged
about 30 years and he was self-employed earning about Rs. 16,000. The further contention of the Appellants was that he was partner in Lalitha
Printers and Manager in Lalitha Paper Store. Hence, they claimed on various heads to the tune of Rs. 31,51,000 and restricted to Rs. 20,00,000.
The Respondent Corporation contested the claim stating that the driver of the Corporation was not responsible for the accident. On the side of
the Appellants three witnesses were examined and Exh. P1 to Exh. P21 were marked and no document was marked on the side of Respondent
Corporation except examining RW 1 as witness.
On appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Respondent Corporation that was discussed in para 6 of the award. Tribunal based upon the evidence
adduced on the side of the Appellants fixed monthly income as Rs. 3,000 of the deceased and applied multiplier of 17 taking into consideration the
age of wife as 32 and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,60,000.
As against the said award only the Appellants filed the above appeal for enhancement. The transport Corporation did not file any appeal against
the award and only the Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum. In the absence of the appeal by the transport Corporation, this Court perceives
that Respondent Corporation is not aggrieved by the finding on negligence against the Corporation. Hence, this Court is not dealing with negligence
aspect as it attained finality.
The learned Counsel appearing for Appellants vehemently argued that in spite of the availability of evidence to prove higher income of the
deceased, the Tribunal fixed the paltry amount of Rs. 3,000 towards monthly income. According to the learned Counsel, even an agricultural
coolie''s monthly income is being fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month, whereas the income of the businessman like the deceased was fixed at
Rs. 3,000. He also disputed the approach of the Tribunal by adopting strict rules of evidence in the summary proceedings under the Act. Mr.
Maheswaran further contended that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act have been incorporated as benevolent statute and it should be
interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries and by relying on technical evidence the very purpose of the statute is being frustrated. He also pointed out
that the Exh. P4 to Exh. P11 and Exh. P21 are income tax returns filed by the deceased and he relied upon Exh. P15 and Exh. P16, passbooks of
the deceased issued by Karur Vaisya Bank and Canara Bank. He also requested this Court to peruse entries made in Exh. P15 and Exh. P16. A
perusal would demonstrate the income of the deceased that he was getting. He also contended that the deceased was looking after the business
namely, Lalitha Paper Stores as shareholder which was proved by Exh. P4 to Exh. P11 as he was earning about Rs. 3,000. As the Manager of
Lalitha Printers he was earning about Rs. 2,000 which was proved by the Exh. P14. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000 only as monthly income of
the deceased, rejecting vital documents on the ground that those documents could not be believed. Only in those circumstances, the learned
Counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that strict rule of evidence cannot be applied before the Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal in
fixing at Rs. 3,000 is against the evidence available on record.
On the other hand, Mr. Asaithambi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation contended that there was no proper evidence
available before the Tribunal to fix the higher monthly income of the deceased and the documents were not supported by any believable evidence
and hence the Tribunal rightly, did not take into consideration those documents.
Hence, based on the evidence available, the Appellant counsel wants this Court to fix higher income. Exh. P4 to Exh. P11 and Exh. P21 are the
income tax returns filed by the deceased Marimuthu. Exh. P5 would show that the deceased Marimuthu was a income tax Assessee from 1991
onwards and he continued to pay income tax till his death. Exh. P12 shows that he was doing partnership business in the name of Lalitha Printers in
which his share was reflected as 50 per cent. Exh. P14 shows that he was looking after Lalitha Printers as Manager and was earning about Rs.
2,000.
On perusing the exhibits produced by the Appellants, it is very clear that the deceased was doing two businesses, namely, Lalitha Paper Stores
as shareholders and Manager in Lalitha Printers. Through Exh. P13 as shareholder of Lalitha Paper Stores was earning about Rs. 3,000 and as
Manager of Lalitha Printers at Rs. 2,000. Totally, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants he was earning about Rs. 7,000
as proved by the exhibits. Exh. P13 and Exh. P14 documents were executed before the Notary Public and the documents were made in stamp
papers. Hence, those documents cannot be ignored by the Tribunal observing that those documents were not registered document. Those
documents are not required to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Those documents did not convey any interest in the
property and they are given only for the purpose of managing the business. Hence, those documents should be taken as reliable evidence and
accordingly the income of the deceased should have been fixed on the basis of those documents also. Apart from the other documents the
Appellants proved that the deceased was a income tax Assessee from 1991 onwards. Bank transactions through Exh. P15 and Exh. P16 would
show that he was regularly transacting.
In above, the exhibits would prove that deceased was earning about Rs. 7,000 as on the date of the death. If Rs. 7,000 is taken as the monthly
income, the annual income would be Rs. 84,000 and 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Yearly contribution of the
deceased to the family would be Rs. 56,000. The Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier of 17 by taking into consideration the age of widow as 32.
If multiplier 17 is applied, the loss of income would be Rs. 9,52,000. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 9,52,000 is awarded towards loss of income.
The other amounts given by the Tribunal in respect of the conventional heads are reasonable and they are confirmed. The trial court rightly granted
interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the award amount and the same is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the modified amounts are given as follows:
For loss of incomeRs. 9,52,000
For loss of love Rs. 25,000
and affection
For loss of Rs. 25,000
consortium
For funeral Rs. 2,000
expenses
Total Rs. 10,04,000
In the appeal, the award of Rs. 4,60,000 is enhanced to Rs. 10,04,000.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation pleads for four weeks time to deposit the amount before the Tribunal and the
same is granted. On such deposit the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount as per the ratio adopted by the Claims Tribunal within ten days
thereon. No costs.