The Managing Director, Tamil State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Samboornam and Others

N. Kirubakaran, J—The appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation against the award of Rs. 8,30,000/- for the death of one K. Muthukumar who died in the accident occurred on 09.07.2010 when he was riding his moped which was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation driven in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the claim petition.

After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the tribunal found that the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation was negligent and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,30,000/- as compensation payable to the respondents/claimants. The said award is being challenged before this court only on the question of quantum.

Mr. Poornam Rajaa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the multiplier 17 adopted by the tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 which speaks about multiplier 16 for the age group of 35 years. Therefore, he seeks to reduce the multiplier and consequently the compensation.

Though the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has got force, still a reading of the award in toto would reveal that the tribunal has not even adopted proper calculation in awarding the compensation. No amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium, especially when the 1st respondent was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and no amount was awarded towards transportation. Therefore, this Court, invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C., on re-appreciating the evidence on records, enhances the compensation.

The deceased was a building mason aged about 32 years, alleged to be earning about Rs. 9,000/- per month. The tribunal, in the absence of any positive evidence regarding income, determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- and adopting multiplier 17 as per Second Schedule including other amounts, awarded Rs. 8,30,000/- as compensation. First of all, in the absence of any positive evidence, the tribunal should have followed the earlier precedence of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The accident occurred on 09.07.2010, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Syed Sadiq Etc vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co., determined the monthly income at Rs. 6,500/- for a vegetable vendor who sustained injury in the accident occurred in the year 2008. Whereas in this case, the accident occurred on 09.07.2010. After adding future prospects at 50%, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above cited case determined the monthly income at Rs. 9,750/-. Since the age of the deceased in this case is 32 years, this court is inclined to follow the determination made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in determining Rs. 9,750/- as the monthly income of the deceased.

It is seen from the records that there are six dependents to the deceased and as per the judgment of SARLA VERMA''s case, the tribunal has rights deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses and hence the loss of income would be calculated as follows-

Rs. 6500 + 50% = Rs. 9750/- Less 1/5th = Rs. 7800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/-

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, as per SARLA VERMA''s case, the proper multiplier to be followed for the age group of 35 years is 16 and therefore this Court adopts the same and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs. 14,97,600/- [Rs. 7800 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 14,97,600/-].

The tribunal committed grave error in not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium to the 1st respondent, especially when she was aged about 25 years when she lost her husband. The physiological and psychological mental agony and pain the lady has to go throughout her life cannot be estimated in terms of money. However, following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 , a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is hereby awarded towards loss of consortium. Only a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to respondents 2 to 4, the minor children of the deceased who are aged about 4 1/2 years, 2 1/2 years and 1 1/2 months. It is very unfortunate that the 4th respondent lost his father when he was aged about 1 1/2 months even when he can recognize his father''s face. These children deprived of the guidance, love and affection of the father throughout their life. In an endeavour, to compensate the said loss, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each is given to the minor children making it as Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head loss of love & affection. Respondents 5 and 6 are the aged parents of the deceased and for the loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- each is awarded making it to Rs. 50,000/- in toto. Only Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and as per the judgment of the RAJESH Case, referred supra, Rs. 25,000/- is hereby awarded under this head and Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards transportation where no amount has been awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 8,30,000/- awarded by the tribunal is suo motto enhanced to Rs. 18,42,600/-, rounded off to Rs. 18,50,000/-, even at the time of admission while dismissing the appeal filed by the transport corporation and without issuing notice to the respondents/claimants. There is no necessity for issue of notice to the respondents/claimants as they are going to be benefited. Only when their rights are infringed, notice is required to be issued in compliance of the principles of natural justice.

The enhancement has been made as stated above in the appeal filed by the transport corporation even in the absence of appeal/cross objection filed by the claimants and this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the amount. What is required to be given is just compensation. Moreover, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are beneficiary in nature. The trial court miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and therefore invoking Order 41 Rule 33, this Court, suo motto enhances the amount as the appeal is a continuation of original proceedings.

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed enhancing the compensation to Rs. 18,50,000/-. The appellant/transport corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount alongwith interest and costs on or before 12.07.2015. No costs. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants 1, 5 & 6 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, on the basis of apportionment fixed by the tribunal. The tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor respondents/claimants 2 to 4 in any one of the Nationalised Bank under reinvestment scheme till they attain majority.

The trial court is directed to insist upon the respondents/claimants for payment of requisite court fee for the enhanced award amount, while disbursing the payments to them.

Call the matter on 13.07.2015 for reporting compliance. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order directly to the respondents/claimants, free of cost.