- (1.) THE appeal preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the cross objection filed by the claimants against the judgment and decree in MCOP No.617 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Ponneri were taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased one Angamuthu met with a motor traffic accident on 21.03.2007 at about 3.45 pm at GNT Road and Sholavaram Junction. The said deceased was riding his motor cycle towards Gummidipoondi to Redhills and when he was nearing Sholavaram Junction, a bus bearing Regn. No.TN21N0871, belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and also in a high speed, hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact of the same, the deceased sustained grievous fatal injuries and immediately he was admitted to Government General Hospital, Chennai and he died on 08.04.2007. The claimants are wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased and they claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, but restricted to Rs.7,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation, resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. On whose negligence, the accident occurred" 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, what is the amount entitled to" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,36,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of Income Rs.4,99,200/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Mental Agony Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 7,500/- ----------------- Rs.5,36,700/- rounded off to Rs.5,36,500/- ----------------- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the appeal and the claimants filed cross objection for enhancement. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation, questioned only the quantum of compensation and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. The counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,800/- and also wrongly adopted the '13' multiplier. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimants and the amount awarded under various heads are very low and the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transportation and loss of estate and contended that the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement.
(3.) HEARD the counsel and perused the document on record. On the side of the claimants/respondents, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and documents Exs.P1 to 4 were marked. Ex.P1, is the FIR. Ex.P2, is the postmortem report. Ex.P3, is the death certificate and Ex.P4, is the legal heir certificate. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no document was marked in support of their claim. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus. It is a question of fact and based on valid materials and evidences and so the same is confirmed. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows: "7. Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of Courts Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance V. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. (1951) AC 601 and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies V. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries ltd., (1942) AC 601. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631: (1994) 2 SCC 176. After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas (supra). " In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have live or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether." "The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year"s purchase." "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." "It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years " virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 " and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible." In UP State Road Transport Corporation V. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies method followed in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas (supra), stated thus: " In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life span taken. That is the reason why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when tribunals/courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance method without making deduction for imponderables..... Under the formula Advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier"(emphasis supplied) ;