AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. N. Kirubakaran, J.—The appellant / Transport Corporation is before this Court, challenging the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.7,32,000/- to the claimants/respondents 1 and 2.
On 17.01.2009, the deceased Paluru Nageswara Rao along with one person wase travelling in the bus owned by the appellant/Transport Corporation, which was driven rash and negligently and fell into the pit on the road and deceased died on the way to the hospital. Therefore, the claim petition was filed. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the appellant / Transport Corporation bus and awarded a sum of Rs.7,35,000/-. The said award is being assailed only on the ground of quantum.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation would argue in the absence of any proof regarding monthly income, the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,500/- as monthly income and added 30% towards future prospects. A scrutiny of the award would disclose that the deceased was aged about 40 years, working as a painter and earning Rs.350/- per day. However, no positive evidence was adduced. In any event, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.4500/- which is on the lower side. The Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. v. Division Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459, determined a sum of Rs.6,500/- as monthly income for a vegetable vendor. Therefore, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1, the persons, who are aged about 45 years, are entitled to add 50% towards future prospectus. Therefore, 50% is required to be added and future prospects in this case. The monthly income is determined as follows:
Rs.6000 + 50%=Rs.9,000/-
Towards personal expenses, ? is required to be deducted and therefore, the loss of income is arrived at Rs.9,000/- - ?=Rs.6,000/- . The age of the deceased as Ex.P2 is 40 years and therefore, the appropriate applying multiplier to be applied is 14. The loss of dependency is modified as follows:
Rs.6,000/- + 50% - ? x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,08,000/-.
Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st respondent is too low. Therefore, following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013(3) CTC 883, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the 1st respondent towards loss of consortium. Similarly, Rs.10,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses and transportation is too low and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The award of Rs.7,32,000/- is enhanced to Rs.11,43,000/- as compensation. The interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.remains unaltered.
It is well settled law, if the Tribunal did not award proper and just compensation, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, even in the absence of any cross appeal/appeal by the claimants. This Court on re-appreciating the evidence on record invoking under Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C., enhance the compensation from Rs.7,32,000/- to Rs.11,33,000/-
The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs as per the order of this Court on or before 29.03.2015, failing which, the Chairman cum Managing Director and Financial Adviser cum Chief Accountant Officer of the Transport Corporation shall appear before this Court on 30.03.2015. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw their respective shares fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connects miscellaneous petition is closed.
Post the matter on 30.03.2015 for reporting compliance.