STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. PERIYA CHELLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a road accident that took place on 6/9/2000, one Chellamuthu, while walking along the road was knocked down by a jeep belonging to the Government [the appellant herein], consequent to which, the victim died. Claiming compensation under various heads his legal representatives approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Court], Bhavani, Erode District, and on appreciation of evidence before it, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.3,25,648.00, on various heads payable with interest at 9% per annum. The details are as below:

(2.) One of the essential arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the victim was a life convict having been convicted by the Sessions Court, Erode in S.C.No.4 of 1998 and given the fact that he was a life convict for the reminder period, he could not have been presumed to have an opportunity to earn, and hence dependency cannot be calculated at the rate in which the Tribunal has assessed it. The Tribunal has partly considered this aspect and it has proceeded to consider that if the deceased were to continue to be in prison he would have been there for 14 years atleast and accordingly added 13 years to his age [which was 45 years at the time of the accident] and then applied multiplier 8 appropriate to 58 years. In essence, the learned Special Government Pleader attacks this presumption of the Tribunal that the appellant would have been released on completion of 14 years, which in law, the Tribunal could not presume.

(3.) Countering the aforesaid argument of the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased Chellamuthu had challenged his conviction in Crl.A.No.447 of 1998 and it is during the pendency of this appeal before this Court, he died on 6/9/2000. He added that while under law his sentence of imprisonment has abated, it appears that the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of this Court when it heard his appeal in Crl.A.No.447 of 1998, the appeal was heard and vide judgment dtd. 21/6/2005, the appellant was found not guilty. The learned counsel produced a typed set of papers along with a certified copy of judgment of the said case for comparison which established the truth of this submission. Now, it is the turn of the claimants' counsel to contend that the factual misconception as to the life-sentence of the victim of the accident that the Tribunal has entertained was demonstrated to be misconceived and justice should be done to the claimants by reworking the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency by applying that multiplier which corresponds to his age when he died. He is submitted that the appellant was a coolie and he was presumed to have earned a notional income of Rs.3,000.00 per month and relied on the dictum of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma and Other Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(2) TNMAC 1]: [2009 ACJ 1298] and Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co., [2012(2) TNMAC (SC)].