2. Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, after taking us through the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the oral and documentary evidence, has raised the following contentions: In the light of the complaint-Ex. P-5, as well as the oral evidence of the eye witness, namely, P.W 2, and the tractor driver namely, R.W 1, the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the tractor driver. He also contended that the amount arrived by the Tribunal is excessive. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.claimants would contend that in the light of the acceptable evidence, the Tribunal has arrived a proper conclusion and granted the just compensation, hence there is no merit in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
4. As regards negligence aspect, it is seen from the evidencel of P.W 2, who is said to be the eye witness, that on 2.11.89, when a Scooter T.S.J 98 driven by one Padmanabhan with a pillion rider Ramamoorthy was proceeding from north to south in the Harbour area, a tractor with trailer TMT 7605 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction and dashed against the Scooter, thereby the pillion rider, namely, Ramamoorthy fell down and sustained fatal injuries. It was he who made a complaint to the police. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P-5 and Rough Sketch preferred by police as Ex.P-6. Learned counsel for the appellants would state that though it was stated by P.W 2 that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part the tractor driver, particularly due to hitting of the iron rods which were carried in the trailer, he has not stated so in Ex.P-5 complaint given to the police. It is true that in Ex.P-5, P.W 2 had not stated about the carrying of iron rods in the trailer. However, he has specifically stated in his evidence
There is no dispute that P.W 2 is working as Senior Attender in the Madras Port Trust. It is also relevant to note that the place of impact is in the harbour area as seen from Ex, P. 6 Sketch prepared by the police. A combined scrutiny of the evidence of P.W 2 and R.W 1 as well as Ex.P-6 would go to show that there was only a gap of 3 feet in between the left side platform and the tractor attached with trailer. It is also clear that the accident had taken place near the speed brake. It is further seen that based on the complaint-Ex.P-5, the police, after investigation, charge sheeted the tractor driver. After considering Exs. P-5, P-6 as well as the oral evidence of P.W2 and R.W 1, we are inclined to accept, the evidence of P.W 2, which is more probable and acceptable, and we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Regarding the negligence aspect, the evidence, particularly the place of impact as seen from Ex.P-6 clearly show that the driver of the tractor alone was responsible for the accident. As observed by the Tribunal, had the driver of the tractor driven the tractor in such a manner by giving sufficient space on the left aide, the accident could have been averted. In such a circumstance, we accept the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal on the negligence aspect.
5. As regards the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal, it is seen from the evidence of P.W 1, wife of the deceased that the deceased was employed as Executive Engineer and his salary was Rs. 4,025/-. She further deposed that at the time of the accident he was aged about 49 years. Ex.P-1 is the salary certificate issued by the Madras Port Trust wherein it is stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 4,190/- per month, Ex.P-4, another certificate issued by the Port Trust, revealed the details regarding the salary and other service particulars. Based on the oral evidence of P.W 1 and Exs.P-1 and P-4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had got a sum of Rs. 5,575.75 at the time of the accident, and out of which, he would have contributed Rs. 5,000/- to his family. Taking note of the age, namely, 49 years, the Tribunal by applying multiplier of 9, fixed an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- towards pecuniary loss. Thereafter, after keeping in mind the pension and other retirement benefits and also by applying 12 years, multiplier, it fixed a further sum of Rs. 3,53,952/-. In this manner the Tribunal arrived a figure of Rs. 8,93,952/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards uncertainty of life and for lumpsum payment, passed an award of Rs. 5,95,968/-. We are not inclined to follow the procedure and the method adopted by the Tribunal. There is ample evidence to show that at the time of the accident, the deceased was employed in the Madras Port Trust and he was aged about 49 years. From the particulars furnished and after considering his future prospects, namely, promotion etc., we fix an amount of Rs. 6000/- as his probable salary from his employer and from and out of the said amount, we deduct 1/3rd, namely, Rs. 2000/- towards his personal expense. Considering the remaining period of service, we apply 9 years multiplier and arrive a figure of Rs. 4,32,000/-. It would have been possible for him to contribute some reasonable amount to his family for certain period even after retirement. In this way, we fix Rs. 30,000/- per annum and when multiplying the same by 4, it comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The total pecuniary loss is arrived at Rs. 5,52,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, it is but proper to fix Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow. We also grant Rs. 10,000/- to each of the claimants 2 and 3, who are the sons of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. Altogether the compensation payable to the claimant is fixed at Rs, 5,85,000/-. Inasmuch as the Tribunal has arrived an amount of Rs. 5,95,968/- and the difference between the said amount is meagre, we are not inclined to disturb the amount as arrived by the Tribunal.
6. Coming to the rate of interest, the Tribunal after fixing the compensation, granted interest at the rate of 15 per cent from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kaushuma Begum and others v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others, 2001 (1) Supreme 5, we are inclined to reduce the rate of interest to 9 per cent from 15 per cent as fixed by the Tribunal.
7. In the light of what is stated above, while confirming the award of the Tribunal, we hereby reduce the rate of interest to 9 per cent. Except the modification in the rate of interest, we hereby confirm the award passed by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal. No costs.
Comments