P. Devadass, J.@mdashAs only a short point is involved, the appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This appeal by the State Transport Corporation is on liability as well as on quantum.
3. On 5.6.2013, in a road accident the respondent sustained grievous injuries. In this accident, the appellant''s bus involved. The respondent was then 57 years old. He was a Sanitary Worker in Illuppur Town Panchayat and stated to have received Rs. 15,000/- p.m as salary and since he suffered amputation below right leg, adopted the multiplier of "8" and granted him compensation amount Rs. 12,64,000/- with 7.5%. interest per annum.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that then the respondent was fully drunken, he only invited the accident. The driver is not guilty of negligence. It is not believable that the respondent received Rs. 15,000/-p.m. Further, in this case, the Tribunal ought to have adopted split multiplier, when especially the respondent was 57 years old, temporary service, of one year service is lef.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal.
6. The plea taken by the appellant before the Tribunal is that at the time of accident, the respondent was found under the influence of alcohol and he raised his hands and the bus run over him. No competent witness to speak about this, has been examined by the appellant. There is no iota of evidence that then the respondent was found drunk. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is right in rejecting such a plea of the State Transport Corporation.
7. The respondent was then 57 years old. He was a Sanitary worker in Illuppur Town Panchayat. His monthly salary is Rs. 15,000/-. The Sanitary workers comes under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Office Assistants, Sanitary Workers, Sweepers, Masalchi are also comes under similar category. Their salary is being brought under the 5th Pay Commission. The Town Panchayat is a Government Department. In this case, to establish the fact that he has received a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, the respondent has marked Ex. B10-Bank Pass-book. The Tribunal perusing the entry into the passbook and accepted the income aspect. There is no wrong in it.
8. As regards the split multiplier, in
9. No doubt, in this case, the respondent was then 57 years old, he lost considerable extent of his hand and it affects his day-to-day activities. He cannot function as before. He is married. He was a lowly paid staff. He is not a gazetted Officer. He is a sanitary worker and he has dependants to support. In such circumstances, it is not a fit case to adopt split multiplier. Under other heads, only only reasonable amount has been awarded. On the whole, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is neither less nor more, but just, fair and reasonable.
10. In the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal made in M.C.O.P. No. 113 of 2013, dated 02.08.2014 is upheld. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount, less amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less amount, if any already withdrawn.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
