R. Sudhakar, J.@mdashThis appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. The case is one of fatal accident. The accident happened at about 9.30 a.m. on 12.3.08. The deceased, Antone Ananth, was riding a motor cycle from West to East on the Mount Poonamallee High Road, near TSR Company, Ramapuram, Chennai. The MTC bus bearing registration No. TN-01-N-2915, driven in a rash and negligent manner, appears to have hit the deceased riding on a motorcycle from behind due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died on the spot. Alleging that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, the present claim for compensation is filed. The wife of the deceased and the father and mother of the deceased are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and the Tribunal granted compensation in a sum of Rs. 39,60,484/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
2. By this appeal, challenge has been made by the Transport Corporation both on the ground of negligence and also on quantum.
3. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1, one Basil Peeris, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, was examined as P.W. 2 and the Mr. Anitha Raju, the Manager of Harita TVS Technologies Ltd., was examined as P.W. 3. On the side of the claimants, the following documents were marked:-
i) Ex. P-1 - Copy of FIR
ii) Ex. P-2 - Death Report
iii) Ex. P-3 - Copy of post-mortem certificate
iv) Ex. P-4 - Legal Heirship Certificate
v) Ex. P-5 - Death certificate
vi) Ex. P-6 series - Certificates regarding educational qualification
vii) Ex. P-7 - Copy of driving licence of deceased
viii) Ex. P-8 series - Pay slips of the deceased
ix) Ex. P-9 - Copy of Rough sketch
x) Ex. P-10 - Copy of inquest report
xi) Ex. P-11 - Appointment order
xii) Ex. P-12 - Transfer Letter
xiii) Ex. P-13 - Job confirmation letter
xiv) Ex. P-14 - Pay slip and service certificate of deceased
xv) Ex. P-15 - Authorisation letter
4. On the side of the respondent-Transport Corporation, R.W. 1 - the driver of the bus and R.W. 2 - the investigator attached with the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation were examined and Ex. P-1 - Investigation report with rough sketch were marked.
5. Insofar as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the police have registered a case in Crime No. 301/08 under Sections 279 and 304(a) IPC against the driver of the bus, who caused the fatal accident. Ex. P-1 is the FIR. Police took up investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch - Ex. P-9. P.W. 2, who is an eye witness has filed proof affidavit stating that on 12.3.08 he was waiting in a car for a customer on the same road and witnessed the accident. The bus, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, which was in front of the bus and caused the fatal accident and that the deceased died on the spot.
6. Though a point was raised by the appellant-Transport Corporation that the rough sketch and report does not speak of the accident in the manner as stated by P.W. 2, but the Tribunal did not accept it stating that the investigation report and rough sketch were prepared after a long gap of time after the accident and there was no material to discredit the evidence of P.W. 2, who is an independent witness and the appellant-Transport Corporation has not placed any material to contradict his statement. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the driver of the bus belonging to the 1st respondent, which caused the fatal accident, by the Tribunal is fully justified and requires no interference. It has to be pointed out that even before this Court, the copy of the rough sketch or the investigation report has not been filed as an annexure to this appeal so as to contradict the finding rendered by the Tribunal.
7. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and his dependent wife and parents are the claimants. He was working as Lead Design Engineer in Haritha TVS Technologies, Bangalore and, subsequently, transferred to TVS E Technologies Ltd., Chennai. The income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 25,250/- per month and the same was supported by Exs. P-8 and P-14 series - pay slips. Ex. P-6 is the educational qualification of the deceased. On the basis of the above documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased is Rs. 25,250/-, which stands established by the above documents. From the said amount, a sum of Rs. 800/- was deducted towards transportation expenses and the actual monthly income was arrived at Rs. 24,450/-. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892, 30% was added towards future prospects and the final monthly income was arrived at Rs. 31,785/-. Based on the above sum, the annual income was arrived at Rs. 3,81,420/- (Rs. 31,785 x 12 = Rs. 3,81,420). From the sum of Rs. 3,81,420/-, 10% was deducted towards income tax and the total loss of income was fixed at Rs. 3,43,278/-. From the amount of Rs. 3,43,278/-, 30% was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the annual pecuniary loss to the dependents was fixed at Rs. 2,28,852/-, on which a multiplier of 17 was adopted as per the decision in
i) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
ii) Loss of love and affection to the parents - Rs. 10,000/- each
iii) Funeral Expenses - Rs. 10,000/-
Finally, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 39,60,484/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. From the date of petition till date of payment.
8. The amount, as arrived at by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation in the manner as alleged by the appellant. Nevertheless, we find that the Tribunal has been very frugal in respect of compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads. In view of the reasons assigned above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
