PATTUKOTTAI AZHAGIRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRABAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PATTUKOTTAI Azhagiri Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranipet. The Tribunal passed an award in connection with the death of Ramachandran, which has occurred on 8.12.1989. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are minor children and respondent No.5 is another son of the deceased. They made a claim for Rs.2 lakhs payable as compensation. To prove their case, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1. He has also examined another witness to prove the occurrence. On the side of the respondents, the witnesses have been examined. Considering the evidence and Exs.A1 to A5 have been marked as supporting documents by the claimants. According to the claimants, the deceased was an agriculturist having lands and he would have earned an income of Rs.30,000/= per year. The Tribunal found that the deceased as an agriculturist would have at least contributed a sum of Rs.1,200/= per month and after his personal expenses he would have contributed at least Rs.1000/= per month to his family. The Tribunal found that he would have contributed to the family Rs.7200/= per year. Considering that the age of the deceased was 42, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and arrived at a figure of Rs.1,29,600/=, but it has deducted a sum of Rs.29,600/= for lumpsum payment and fixed the amount as Rs.1 lakh by way of compensation. Apart from that, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/= as compensation for the loss of love and affection and the total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/= was awarded. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the deceased would have earned Rs.1200/= per month. THErefore, the conclusion of the tribunal is not supported by evidence and hence it is liable to be set aside. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Even an agriculturist coolie would have earned Rs.1200/= per month, the Tribunal fixing the income as Rs.1200/= cannot be said to be excessive. Yet the tribunal has fixed only Rs.6000/= as contribution to his family. This amount is not excessive. In fact, we are of the opinion, the tribunal could have fixed a higher amount of compensation payable by the deceased. Since no cross appeal was filed by the claimants, we are not disturbing that finding. THE tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1 lakh as pecuniary loss. THE tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss of consortium to the wife as well as love and affection of his children. This cannot be said to unreasonable. THErefore, the award of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in all is not excessive and hence we are confirming the award passed by the tribunal. THE tribunal has awarded 15% interest on the compensation amount. We find that 15% interest is excessive and hence we reduce the interest payable from 15% to 12% per annum. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.