Venugopal v. The Managing Director

JUDGMENT The above Civil Miscellaneous Petition is directed against the award and decree dated 15.02.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1713 of 2017on the file of the Special District Court (II Additional District Judge, FAC, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Salem,

¶2Shortly stated, on 07.06.2017 at about 5.30 pm, when the deceased was riding with his mother in a two wheeler bearing Registration NoTN 54 H 5281 on Attur to Salem main road from Udayapatty to Ayodiapattanam from west to east, a TNSTC bus bearing Reg.No.88A TN 30 N 0304 came from Ayodhiapattanam to Salem, on the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased's vehicle. As a result of which the wife and the son of the 1st claimant who are the mother and brother of the 2nd claimant died on the spot. The bus driver is directly responsible for the accident. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the vehicle by the Ammapet Police in Crime No.381/2017 under Section 279 &304 (A) of IPC. The deceased was aged about 19 years. He was a B.B.A student. He was very hale and healthy at the time of accident. Due to the sudden death, the petitioners sustained heavy loss and the entire family was put into darkness. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased claimed a compensation at Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

¶3The claim of the claimants was resisted on the side of the respondent by stating that the driver of the Corporation/bus was not responsible for the accident. It is also stated that the claim made by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶4Before the trial Court, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.2 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. No oral and documents were marked on the side of the respondents.

¶5Based on the materials available on record, the trial Court, accordingly framed three points for consideration and came to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged and claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the respondent. The compensation of Rs.15,42,000/- has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by this, the claimants have preferred the present appeal assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶6Through this appeal, award has been challenged on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is very low. According to the claimants, the income of the deceased has not been fixed properly by the Tribunal. Since at the time of the accident, the deceased was pursuing B.B.A and was hale and healthy. However, the Tribunal has fixed the income at Rs.10,000/- which is inadequate. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident as alleged by the claimants. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard is confirmed. The dispute only with regard to the income of the deceased.

¶7The learned counsel Mr.Amar D.Pandiya appearing for the claimants would submit that the accident took place in the year 2017. The deceased was pursuing B.B.A at the time of the accident. If not for the accident, the deceased after completing his studies would have earned a better income than fixed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the meagre amount of salary fixed by the Tribunal requires interference by this Court.

¶8On the other hand, Mr.D.Raghu learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation would submit that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased and therefore, it does not require any interference. However, this Court found some substance in the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to fix the income of the deceased at the rate Rs.14,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation on the other heads are confirmed.

9.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the age of the deceased and the year the accident took place, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month with 40% for future prospect. Admittedly, the deceased was a batchulor at the time of the accident. Consequently, annual dependency after deduction of 50% towards personal expenses and multiplied by 18, loss of income to the petitioners, comes to Rs.21,16,800/-. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Tribunal failed to award compensation under the head 'love and affection'. Hence, a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded as compensation under the head 'love and affection' (40,000x2).The other sums awarded to the claimants are confirmed.

10.Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable, to enhance the compensation as follows: S. N o Description Amount awarded by Tribunal

(Rs) Amount awarded by this Court

(Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted

¶1Los of Income 15,12,000 21,16,800 Enhanced

¶2Loss of Love and Affection - 80,000 Granted

¶3Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 Confirmed

¶4Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 Confirmed Total Rs.15,42,000/-Rs.22,26,800/-enhanced by Rs.6,84,800/-

¶11In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.15,42,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.22,26,800/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent is directed to pay the above said compensation amount now determined by this Court to the claimants along with interest and costs,less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant being the father of the deceased is entitled to Rs.12,26,800. The 2nd claimant being the minor brother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.10,00,000/-. The Share amount of the minor claimant shall be invested in any one of the Nationalized Banks until he attains majority and 1st claimant being the father of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the share of the minor claimant once in six months for the maintenance and welfare of the minor claimant. The claimants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee, if any for the enhanced award amount. No costs.

25.10.2024 [½] Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To

¶1The II Additionl District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court , FAC)Salem

¶2The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,

J.

vsn

25.10.2024 [½]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J. 1.Venugopal 2.Minor Manoharan, S/o.Venugopal, Minor Represented by his next friend and Natural Guardian Father Venugopal. …Appellants Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7 …Respondent Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, to allow the present appeal and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1713 of 2017, on the file of the Special District Court (II Additional District Judge, FAC, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem), and to enhance the award amount. For Appellant : Mr.Amar D.Pandiya for M/s.M.Mohamed Riyaz For Respondents : Mr.D.Raghu