Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Bakkiam on 21 January, 2021
1
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 21.01.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice D.KRISHNA KUMAR
C.M.A.No.555 of 2009
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore Division) Ltd.,
37, Attupalayam Road,
Coimbatore-43 ... Appellant
Vs..
1.Bakkiam
2.Elumalai
3.Jothi
4.Murugesan
5.S.Ramesh Kumar
6.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch II 1272 to 1273
Mettu Road, Palaniappa Complex,
Erode-11
7.J.Andrew Raymond ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed
by the learned I Additional District Judge, (MACT), Erode in O.P.
No.772 of 2005 dated 09.06.2007.
For Appellant : Mr.Arun
for Mr.A.Sundaravathanam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned I Additional
District Judge, (MACT), Erode, the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Ltd., has filed this appeal in O.P.
No.772 of 2005 dated 09.06.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
a) On 27.07.2005 at about 3.30 pm., when the deceased was
riding his bicycle in Perundurai road, opposite to Nokia cell shop, the
car bearing registration No.TN-33-AZ-3011 hit the deceased by
opening the door suddenly, due to which he fell down, at that
moment, the bus bearing registration No.TN-43-N-0291 ran over
him. Due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the car and the
Transport Corporation bus, the deceased succumbed to the
injuries. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim
petition, claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation.
b) Before the Tribunal, witnesses P.W.1 & P.W.2 are examined
and exhibits P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the claimants.
The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidences,
came to the conclusion that the fatal accident had taken place due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
to the negligent act of the drivers of the car and the transport
corporation bus and awarded a sum of Rs.4 lakhs with 7.5% p.a.
interest from the date of petition till the date of realization. The
said sum of compensation was directed to be paid equally by the
third and fifth respondent therein namely, the Insurance Company
and the Transport Corporation.
3. Aggrieved over the same, the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation has filed this appeal.
4. Though notice was ordered to the respondents on
03.09.2019, no steps have been taken to serve them, this Court by
considering the merits of the case and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal itself is taken up today
for final disposal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal without taking into account the age of the deceased as 27
years at the time of the accident had erred in adopting the
multiplier 18, which according to him is unsustainable. He also
contended that without any oral and documentary evidence to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
establish that the deceased had earned a sum of Rs.3000/- per
month, had fixed his monthly income at Rs.3000/-, which is not
acceptable. Therefore on these grounds, the learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is
liable to be set aside.
6. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and filed
the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for
the accident that had happened on 27.07.2005. According to the
claimants before the Tribunal, the deceased had earned more than
Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence had fixed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per
annum. A sum of Rs.12,000/- i.e., 1/3rd was deducted towards his
personal expenses, arriving at Rs.24,000/- p.a. to meet out the
family expenses of the deceased.
7. Insofar as the other contention raised the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the multiplier 18 adopted by the Tribunal is
contrary to the II Schedule of the MV Act as per the dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case [2009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
ACJ 1298 (SC)]. This Court finds some force on the contention of
the appellant in respect of adoption of multiplier as excessive as per
the aforesaid dictum, the correct multiplier is 17 as the age of the
deceased was 27 years at the time of death. Even otherwise, the
Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent claimant
is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- under the pecuniary loss and
also awarded further amount on various heads to the tune of
Rs.30,000/-, totalling to Rs.4,62,000/- as compensation to the
claimant. But the respondent has restricted their claim only to Rs.4
lakhs. Therefore even though the contention of the appellant is
accepted and the multiplier 17 is adopted instead of 18, the said
award passed by the Tribunal does not require modification in view
of the above facts and circumstances. Consequently, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
21.01.2021
Index: Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
D.KRISHNA KUMAR.J,
DP
To
1.The I Additional Court,
(The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)
Erode.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.555 of 2009
21.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
