DATED: 30--09--2008

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU

C.M.A. (N.P.D.) No. 1032 of 2003

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

Vellore -9 (Villupuram Division  2) ..Appellant

Vs.

1. Rukku

2. Selvi

3. Raja

4. Sudhakar

5. Nirmala

6. Uma ..Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 840/99 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruvannamalai. For Appellant :: Mr.G. Munirathinam

For Respondents :: Mr.T.R. Rajaraman

J U D G M E N T

The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruvannamalai, in M.C.O.P. No. 840 of 1999 dated 6.1.2003.

2. The averments in the claim petition are as follows:

On 2.7.1999, at about 9.30a.m., while the deceased Venkatesan was riding his TVS 50 moped bearing Registration No. TN-23-9485 on the left side of Tiruvannamalai  Vellore Road, near Manianthangal Junction, a bus belonging to the appellant/2nd respondent Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-23-S-1291, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Venkatesan and he died on the spot. The accident took place due to negligence on the part of the bus driver. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. He was working as a Headmaster in a Primary School in Kannikapuram Panchayat. His salary was Rs.12,500/- per month and he was to retire on 30.6.2001. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.

3. In the counter statement filed by the appellant/2nd respondent Corporation, it is stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the bus cautiously drove it following traffic rules and it was the deceased, who drove the TVS 50 moped in a haphazard manner. On seeing it, the driver applied the brake and stopped the bus. But, the TVS 50 moped dashed against the right side bumper of the bus and the deceased fell down on the road. The accident took place only due to negligence on the part of TVS 50 moped driver. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is high and excessive. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. There is not much quarrel before this Court as regards the saddling of responsibility on the bus driver in causing the accident. Mr.G. Munirathinam, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal, as per the II schedule to Motor Vehicles (Amended) Act, is not in accordance with law and the Tribunal has not followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents/claimants would contend that having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has adopted proper multiplier and also assessed the income correctly. Hence, according to the learned counsel, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal.

6. It is no doubt true that the deceased was serving as a Headmaster in a Primary School in Kannikapuram Panchayat. Ex-A2 is the pay certificate produced from which it is evident that the salary of the deceased, payable to him as on 30.6.2001, was Rs.12,500/- per month. But, the accident took place in the year 1999 and certainly, he would have drawn a lesser sum. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that eventhough the Tribunal, for the purpose of compensation, had fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month, after his superannuation at 58 years, the deceased would not have received the same amount as salary, had he been alive, as he would be a pensioner then. This Court is also conscious of the fact that after 58 years, there would be no income for the deceased except his pension, which may be sufficient to maintain himself and there may not be any possibility for him to contribute his earnings to his dependents.

7. Considering the above said aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to fix Rs.6000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Hence, the total loss of income comes to Rs.72,000/- out of which Rs.24,000/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the dependency could be fixed at Rs.48,000/-.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in I (2006) ACC 300 (SC)(Malla Prakasa Rao V. Malla Janaki and Others), which was a case of fatal accident, pertaining to a person aged about 48 years at the time of accident, who was a bank employee. Considering the retirement age, the Supreme Court adopted a multiplier 12. In view of the above said decision, the learned counsel would request this Court to adopt a multiplier of 3 since the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and only three years were left to attain superannuation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would gather support from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008  2- L.W. 471 (Ramesh Singh and another V. Satbir Singh and another) wherein their Lordships have adopted a multiplier of 8 considering the life expectancy of the claimants, eventhough the deceased was only aged 22 years at the time of the incident.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would distinguish this decision by stating that the deceased in the above said decision was neither a bank employee nor a salaried man and therefore, the same multiplier could not be followed in this case.

11. However, inasmuch as this Court has already assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/-, considering his remaining period of service as well as his future life after superannuation at 58 years, I am of the considered view that multiplier of 6 could very well be applied in this case. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- could be arrived at as dependency and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses could also be allowed. The 1st claimant, being, wife, is entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium. Totally, a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- could be made available to the claimants.

12. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part modifying the quantum of compensation from Rs.7,30,000/- to Rs.3,28,000/- payable by the appellant Corporation, in which the 1st claimant/wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- and claimants 2 to 6 are entitled to Rs.20,000/- each. nv

To

The MACT (Prl. Dist. Judge),

Tiruvannamalai