R. Banumathi, J.@mdashBeing aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 5,73,496/- for the death of the deceased Yesudoss in a road
traffic accident on 10.09.1997, State Transport Corporation (STC) has preferred this Appeal.
2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:
On 10.09.1997 - 3.45 P.M. the deceased Yesudoss had gone to J.K.R. Lorry booking office, Mandharakuppam from his native place through his
bi-cycle towards west to east on the left side mud road in Virudhachalam to Cuddalore Main road. While the deceased coming near
Mandharakuppam Vasavi Petrol Bunk, the Appellant-Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN-32-N 0528 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident the deceased sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died on the spot. At
the time of accident the deceased was aged 31 years and he was working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and was getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per
month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the Claimants who are mother, brother and sisters of the
deceased Yesudoss have filed Claim Petition u/s 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
3. Opposing the Claim, STC has filed counter stating that the bus was driven in a careful manner and while the bus going near Vasavi Petrol Bunk
at Mandarakuppam, two cycles were coming parallelly in the opposite direction and the riders were talking with each other and the cyclists
crossed the road. After seeing them crossing the road, the driver of the bus applied sudden brake to avoid the accident. Inspite of best efforts
taken by the driver of STC bus, the cyclists hit against the bus. Since the accident was due to lack of carelessness and negligence on the part of the
cyclists, STC is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the third Claimant was examined as P.W.1. Eye witness was examined as P.W.2. Exs. P.1 to P.13 were marked. The
driver on duty was examined as R.W.1. No documents were marked on the side of the Respondents. Upon consideration of oral and
documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal has negatived the
defence plea of contributory negligence. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,136/- and adopting multiplier 17, Tribunal has calculated the
loss of dependency at Rs. 5,62,496/-. Adding conventional damages, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,73,496/-.
5. The learned Counsel Ms. S. Geetha, appearing for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased which the Tribunal erred in not analysing in a proper perspective. It was further submitted that the deceased was aged 31 years
and a bachelor. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Corporation has further submitted that based on the age of the mother, the
Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier ''12'' and not ''17'' and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the higher side.
6. The learned Counsel Mr. R. Babu, appearing for the Respondents-Claimants 5 and 6 has submitted that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same need not be interfered with.
7. Though the Appellant-Corporation has taken the plea of contributory negligence, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. On the
interested testimony of bus driver-R.W.1, contributory negligence alleged by the STC cannot be said to be established.
8. In this Appeal the manner of accident and as to who was responsible for the accident is not seriously challenged. Therefore, it is not necessary
to narrate the entire facts in detail as to how the accident had occurred, who is responsible for the accident and who is liable to pay the
compensation. It is for the reason the Tribunal has recorded the findings in favour of the Claimant. Further, these findings are not under challenge.
Only the quantum of compensation is in dispute.
9. The third Claimant Xavier-brother of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1. In his evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that the deceased Yesudoss
was working as Industrial worker in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and was earning Rs. 4,500 - 5000/- per month. Ex. P.7 is the salary slip for
January, 1997. Ex. P.8 is the salary slip for May, 1996 from which it is seen that in 1996 the deceased was getting the monthly salary of Rs.
2020/-. Ex. P.9 is the salary slip for February 1997 from which it is seen that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 2170/-. Ex. P.7 is the salary
slip for January 1997 which would show that the deceased was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 4,136/- at the time of accident. From the
evidence of P.W.1 and by perusal of Exs. P.7 to P.9, it is seen that at the time of accident the deceased was getting the monthly salary of
Rs.4,136/-. The Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,136/-. Deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the
Tribunal has rightly calculated the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 33,088/-.
10. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 31 years. Based on the Second schedule, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier 17 which is
applicable for the age group of 30-35 years. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal erred in
adopting the multiplier based on the age of the deceased. It was further submitted that the deceased being a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have
adopted the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased.
11. Placing reliance upon Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, and The New India Assurance Company
Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others, , the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have adopted
the multiplier ''12'' which is the maximum multiplier applicable in the cases where deceased being a bachelor.
12. Placing reliance upon 2006 (4) CTC 245 K. Jeyagopal and Anr. v. Nachiammal and Anr. the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Corporation
has submitted that in the said case the deceased was aged 28 years and the Tribunal has adopted multiplier ''18'' and the same was maintained by
this Court. The learned Counsel for the Claimants has submitted that the deceased being 31 years, Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier ''17''
and there is no reason to interfere with the multiplier ''17'' as adopted by the Tribunal.
13. It is fairly well settled that the selection of multiplier cannot always depend on the age of the deceased where the dependants are the parents,
then the age of younger of the parent will determine the multiplier. Choice of multiplier has to be made by the Court using its experience and having
due regard to the particular facts of each case to award compensation which is just and reasonable.
14. In the case of Chellammal v. Kailasam 2006 ACJ 854 (SC) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has relied upon the multiplier provided in
the Second Schedule to the Act for increasing the multiplier. In case of Jyoti Kaul and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another, and in case of
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others Etc. Etc., , the Supreme Court leaned in favour of adopting multiplier as
indicated in the Second Schedule.
15. At the time of accident, the fourth Claimant-mother was aged 47 years. As per Second schedule to M.V. Act, for the age group of 45-50
years, multiplier ''13'' to be adopted. Adopting multiplier ''13'' the annual loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.4,30,144/- (Rs.33,088/- x 13).
16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and the same is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/-
for loss of estate and the same is maintained. The fourth Claimant, aged 47 years has lost her elder son and lost the love and affection of her elder
son in the evening of her life. Like wise, the Claimants 1,3 and 4 who are the brother and sisters of the deceased have also lost their love and
affection of the deceased. For loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs. 37,500/- is awarded. (Rs. 12,500/- to each of the Claimants 1,3 and
4).
17. The compensation amount of Rs. 5,73,496/- is reduced to Rs. 4,77,644/- as under:
Loss of dependency .... Rs. 4,30,144/-
Funeral expenses .... Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of estate .... Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection .... Rs. 37,500/-
----------------
Total.... Rs. 4,77,644/-
----------------
The above compensation of Rs.4,77,644/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1,2 and 4 equally as ordered by the Tribunal. Since the
Second Claimant is dead the compensation amount payable to her is payable to her legal representatives of the deceased Second Claimant.
18. In the result. The compensation amount of Rs. 5,73,496/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 193 of 1998 dated 20.4.2001 on the file
of Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhachalam is reduced to Rs. 4,77,644/- and this C.M.A. is partly allowed.
The compensation amount is payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit.
The compensation amount of Rs. 4,77,644/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1,2 and 4 equally as ordered by the Tribunal.
The Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them along with accrued interest.
The excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 193/1998 shall be refunded to the Appellant-Corporation along with accrued interest.
There is no order as to costs in this Appeal.
