MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of an order dated 21. 6. 2002 made in m. C. O. P. No. 309 of 1994, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional district cum Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,60,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Seven thousand only) with interest at 9% p. a. , for the death of one Dhanapal, son of the first respondent, husband of the second respondent and father of respondents 3 to 6, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 5. 5. 1994 in dharmapuri-Pennagaram main road near Chandra Balasubramaniam School.

(2.) 1. The brief facts are: At about 7. 00 p. m. on 5. 5. 94, when the deceased Dhanapal was returning after attending a funeral ceremony at okenekal in his Yamaha motor bike along with one Sivalingam, in the main road at Pennagaram near Chandra Balasubramaniam School, a bus belonging to the appellant Corporation came behind the bike of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against it, as a result of which, the said Dhanapal suffered grievous injury on the head and was admitted in the hospital and in spite of treatment, the deceased died on the same night. 2. 2. The claim petition in M. C. O. P. No. 309 of 1994 was filed by the respondents/claimants, claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen Lakhs only), for the death of the said Dhanapal, which was resisted by the appellant Corporation on the ground that the accident took place only when the deceased tried to overtake the appellant Corporation bus and it was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The compensation claimed and the monthly income of the deceased were also disputed. 2. 3. The Tribunal, after framing the issues and after taking into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment. The tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and as a result of the same, the deceased died. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation for the death of the deceased Dhanapal and determined a sum of Rs. 13,60,000/- as the amount due to the claimants under the following heads: Loss of income :: Rs. 12,80,000/- Loss of estate :: Rs. 25,000/- Loss of consortium :: Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection :: Rs. 25,000/- Funeral expenses :: Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses :: Rs. 5,000/- ------------ Rs. 13,60,000/- -------------

(3.) 1. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also lapse of 12 years from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal, we took pain to see whether there is any other material as per which the monthly income of the deceased could be fixed a little more. Though there is no other documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, when we peruse the claim petition filed by the claimants before the tribunal, it could be seen that the deceased, who was owning a jewellery show room, was earning an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the said show room and he was also getting an income of Rs. 2,500/- from his house properties and other shops and thus, totally the deceased was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month at the time of accident as stated in the claim petition. 7. 2. Thus, in view of the above said position, we feel it appropriate that the monthly income of the deceased could be fixed at rs. 5,000/ -. Accordingly, we arrive at a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with regard to the monthly income of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income could be arrived at Rs. 9,60,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 9,60,000/-)and deducting one-third towards personal expenses, it figures out to rs. 6,40,000/ -. When we add the award of Rs. 80,000/- towards conventional damages along with the amount of compensation towards loss of income now arrived at, i. e. , Rs. 6,40,000/-, it comes to Rs. 7,20,000/ -.