The Managing Director vs Thirumathi Nangayarkarasi

G. Chockalingam, J.—Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- in M.C.O.P. No. 1433 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, dated 26.04.2005, the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.

The brief facts are as follows:

On 12.10.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., while the deceased was returning from his factory in his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-21-G-6909, at Vaiyavoor Village in Madhurantagam Taluk and was proceeding in the G.S.T. Road from South to North direction to his residence, the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-6735 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the North to South direction entered into the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. In the accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the wife of the deceased had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1433 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- and the parents of the deceased/Chidambararaj have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 3200 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/- for the death of their son.

Resisting both the claim petitions, the appellant Transport Corporation filed the counter stating that the accident was not due to the negligence of the bus driver and that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants was on the higher side.

To substantiate their claim, before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased/claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1433 of 2002 examined herself as P.W. 1 and one Mr. Vijayakumar was examined as P.W. 2 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 14 were marked. On the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws. 1 & 2 and Exs. R. 1 to R. 13 were marked.

Both the claim petitions filed by the wife of the deceased and the parents of the deceased were tried together and upon consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and held that the first respondent before the Tribunal/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- under various heads as under:

Loss of Income ..

Rs. 13,18,896.00

Transport Expenses ..

Rs. 1,000.00

Damages to cloths and vehicle ..

Rs. 5,000.00

Loss of Consortium ..

Rs. 4,68,104.00

Loss of Estate ..

Rs. 2,00,000.00

Transport Expenses for taking the

body to another village ..

Rs. 5,000.00

Funeral expenses ..

Rs. 2,000.00

Total ..

Rs. 20,00,000.00

Out of the total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the wife, who is the petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 1433 of 2002 was given a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/- and the father and mother, who are the petitioners 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 3200 of 2003 were given a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively.

In this case, before the Tribunal, the parents of the deceased/Chidambararaj had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 3200 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/- and the wife of the deceased had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1433 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Both the M.C.O. Ps. were tried together and common order was passed by the Tribunal on 26.04.2005. As against the said order, the first respondent Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., had preferred appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 2367 and 2262 of 2006. While both the C.M. As. are pending before this Court, C.M.A. No. 2367 of 2006 preferred by the parents of the deceased was settled before the Lok Adalat held on 22.09.2012. In the Lok Adalat, the parents of the deceased, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 2367 of 2006 have settled their claim for a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Even though the said C.M.A. No. 2367 of 2006 was settled, C.M.A. No. 2262 of 2006 was not settled between the parties and the same is pending before this Court. Both the cases are relating to the death of the deceased Chidambararaj. But the wife of the deceased and parents of the deceased have filed two M.C.O. Ps separately for the death of the deceased Chidambararaj. Hence, the damages for the death of the deceased have to be calculated jointly.

The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation contended that the Tribunal is erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at the excessive rate of Rs. 9,158/- and payment of tax if any also has to be deducted from the income and the Tribunal is erred in applying the maximum multiplier of 18 instead of applying the settled principles of law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal, without following the principles of law, has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,68,104/- towards loss of consortium and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of estate which are very excessive. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has also excessively awarded compensation under various heads. Under the said circumstances, the learned counsel prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal has to be modified in accordance with law.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, has fixed the annual income of the deceased and also applied the correct multiplier of 18. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant further contended that considering the age of the deceased and the age of the wife of the deceased, the Tribunal has correctly awarded just and reasonable compensation for the loss of consortium and loss of estate. Hence, the judgment of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.

After hearing the elaborate arguments made on either side, the followings points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

Whether the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation or not?;

and

What other relief''s that the claimants are entitled to?

In this case, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,158/- per month. To prove the same, salary certificates of the deceased for the months of September and October were produced as Exs. P. 12 and P. 13. As per Ex. P. 12-salary certificate, the following salary was given to the deceased for the month of September 2001.

Salary -

5,256

HRA -

2,102

Site Allowance -

1,000

Conveyance -

800

Total -

9,158

Hence, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 9,158/- which need not require any interference by this Court. Towards personal expenses of the deceased, 1/3 deduction was made by the Tribunal for computing the compensation which also does not warrant any interference by this Court. On a perusal of Ex. P. 5-Driving Licence, it is clear that the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 27.03.1972. Hence, the age of the deceased on the date of accident is 29 years.

Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, , wherein at paragraph Nos. 26 and 27, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

"26. In Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , this Court undertook the exercise of comparing the multiplier indicated in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, ; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , and Charlie, from claims under Section 166 of the 1988 Act with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A (with appropriate declaration after 50 years) as follows:

Age of deceased Multiplier Scale as envisaged in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, Multiplier Scale as adopted by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, as clarified in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, Multiplier Specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the (as seen from the quantum of compensation)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(6)

Upto 15 years

-

-

-

15

20

15 to 20 years

16

18

18

16

19

21 to 25 years

15

17

18

17

18

26 to 30 years

14

16

17

18

17

31 to 35 years

13

15

16

17

16

36 to 40 years

12

14

15

16

15

41 to 45 years

11

13

14

15

14

46 to 50 years

10

12

13

13

12

51 to 55 years

9

11

11

11

10

56 to 60 years

8

10

9

8

8

61 to 65 years

6

8

7

5

6

Above 65 years

5

5

5

5

5

In paragraph 42 (pg. 140) of the Report, this Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , laid down that the multiplier shall be used in a given case in the following manner:

"42. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

28 to 32.........

We have already noticed the table prepared in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , for the selection of multiplier. The table has been prepared in Sarla Verma having regard to the three decisions of this Court, namely, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, ; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , and Charlie for the claims made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. The Court said that multiplier shown in Column (4) of the table must be used having regard to the age of the deceased. Perhaps the biggest advantage by employing the table prepared in Sarla Verma, is that the uniformity and consistency in selection of the multiplier can be achieved.

...................................... We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma."

According to the above principles of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, for the age group 26 to 30, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 17. But, the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18. Hence, we are of the considered view that correct multiplier to be adopted in this case is only 17. The monthly income of the deceased is fixed as Rs. 9,158/- and after deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, loss of contribution to the family is calculated at Rs. 6,106/- per month. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 12,45,624/- (Rs. 6,106/- x 12 x 17=Rs. 12,45,624/-). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards transport expenses and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages to cloths and vehicle which are reasonable and therefore the said amounts are confirmed.

The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation vehemently contended that without any basis or any principles, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,68,104/- towards loss of consortium and therefore the same has to be reduced. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant contended that since the claimant lost her husband at the young age, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 4,68,104/- towards loss of consortium and the same has to be upheld. Considering the age of the deceased and also the age of the first respondent/claimant during the time of death, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation further argued that the Tribunal, without any basis, has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of estate for which the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant objected. In this case, regarding the loss of dependency, this Court had already awarded a sum of Rs. 12,45,624/-. Hence, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate. Under the head of transport expenses for taking the body to another village, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which is reasonable and therefore there is no necessity to modify the same. Further, under the head of funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- which is too low and it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the said head.

Thus, in the above said circumstances, the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows:-

S. No.

Heads

Amount awarded by the Tribunal

Amount awarded by this Court

(1)

Loss of Income

Rs. 13,18,896.00

Rs. 12,45,624.00

(2)

Transport Expenses

Rs. 1,000.00

Rs. 1,000.00

(3)

Damages to cloths and vehicle

Rs. 5,000.00

Rs. 5,000.00

(4)

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 4,68,104.00

Rs. 2,00,000.00

(5)

Loss of Estate

Rs. 2,00,000.00

Rs. 50,000.00

(6)

Transport Expenses for taking the body to another village

Rs. 5,000.00

Rs. 5,000.00

(7)

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 2,000.00

Rs. 5,000.00

Total

Rs. 20,00,000.00

Rs. 15,11,624.00

(8)

Less: The compensation amount which was already granted to the parents of the

deceased in M.C.O.P. No. 3200/2003 in C.M.A. No. 2367/2006 as per the award passed in the Lok Adalat on 22.09.2012]

[Rs. 15,11,624 - 3,15,000=Rs. 11,96,624.00]

Rs. 11,96,624.00

(9)

Compensation payable to the wife of the deceased in M.C.O.P. No. 1433/2002 in

C.M.A. No. 2262/2006

Rs. 11,96,624.00

Rounded off

Rs. 11,97,000.00

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the common award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1433 of 2002 and 3200 of 2003 is modified and the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 16,50,000/- to Rs. 11,97,000.00 for this case alone. The reduced compensation is payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with proportionate costs awarded by the Tribunal. No costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

The appellant transport corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with the accrued interest.