MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. KALAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, when the appeal came up for hearing, Mr. Ponram Rajaa, learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation, submitted that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 9,43,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, awarded to wife and minor daughter, the legal representatives of the deceased, alone is the challenge in this appeal. Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. According to the respondents/claimants, at the time of accident, deceased was aged 38 years, self employed and by running a Chicken Stall on Poochiyur Road, Narasimmanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, he earned Rs. 10,000/-. But the claims tribunal has fixed the loss of annual income as Rs. 50,000/-, after deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and by applying '16' multiplier, computed the loss of contribution as Rs. 8,00,000/-. Under the head loss of consortium, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/-. For loss of love and affection to the minor and to the wife, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/-. Perusal of the award shows, that after the accident, on 03.09.2008, the injured was admitted in hospital and despite, treatment and incurring expenditure of Rs. 1,13,000/-, he died. Therefore, on the basis of medical bills, a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- has been awarded. Further, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- each for transportation and funeral expenses. Altogether, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,43,000/-.

(2.) The quantum of compensation is challenged on the grounds inter alia that the claims tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income as Rs. 6,250/-.

(3.) Though, the State Transport Corporation has assailed the quantum of compensation on the grounds inter alia that the claims tribunal has fixed a higher monthly income for computing the loss of dependency and further contended that a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- awarded under the head medical expenses, is without basis, having regard to the date of accident, avocation of the deceased, oral evidence of PW3, to support the avocation that deceased was running a chicken stall and Ex. P23, certificate issued by R.P. Traders, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the transport corporation. PW3, has deposed that at a place called Vellaikinaru, under the name and style of 'Suguna Broiler Chicken stall', he was running a wholesale business in sale of chicken and that the deceased was a retailer. He has also deposed that for nearly 10 years, the deceased used to buy chicken and sell the same, as a retailer. Though, he has marked Ex. P22, a certificate issued by one Khanna Broilers and Ex. P23, certificate issued by R.P. Traders to prove that PW3, was a wholesaler, no documents have been filed by the claimants as to the extent of procurement of chicken from the wholesaler. Thus, the claims tribunal, on the testimony of PW3, has arrived at a conclusion that the deceased as a retailer, engaged in sale of chicken by having a stall at Krishnammal Nagar, Poochiyur Road, Narasimmanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, would have earned annually Rs. 50,000/- i.e., income, at the rate of Rs. 4166/- per month, after deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, from the monthly income of Rs. 6,250/- and computed the loss of contribution to the family.