Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Dhanalakshmi and Another

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.—Pallavan Transport Corporation, being aggrieved by the award passed in MACT.OP.No. 691 of 1994 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, has preferred the above appeal.

The respondents had a son by name Parthiban. On the fateful day, that was on 9.12.1993 at about 7.30 A.M., when he was crossing

Suryanarayana Chetty Street from west to east, the bus belonging to the appellant/Corporation, coming from south to north, hit him causing serious

injuries and ultimately the said Parthiban succumbed to the injuries. The respondents filed a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of the M.A.C.T. Rules, contending that the accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving by the

driver of the Corporation, who drove the bus in question viz., TCB-8112, and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000. In the said

petition, they contended that the deceased Parthiban was earning Rs. 150 per day and they made their claims under four different heads viz., (i)

loss of expectation of life - Rs. 25,000; (ii) mental agony - Rs. 20,000; loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 2,50,000 and transportation & funeral

expenses - Rs. 4,500.

On behalf of the appellant/Corporation, a counter statement was filed, disputing the various claims made by the respondents/claimants. In the

said statement, it is stated that at about 7.30 A.M., the bus was proceeding in Suryanarayana Chetty Street in Kasimedu and that the driver of the

bus seeing a man attempting to cross the road, stopped the bus immediately, but however, before it came to an halt, the front left side of the bus hit

the deceased. According to the appellant, the accident occurred only due to the unwise and negligent attempt of the deceased in crossing the road,

where there is no pedestrian crossing, without observing the bus which was plying very close to him. Alternatively, it is stated that the claim made is

highly excessive.

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined viz., the mother of the victim, an eye witness to the occurrence

and a Sub Inspector of Police and as many as six documents were marked including the first information report, a rough sketch and the post

mortem certificate. On behalf of the appellant/Corporation, the Driver, who drove the bus at the relevant time, was examined as RW-1 and no

document was marked.

The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal fixed it at Rs. 1,60,000.

Before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation put forward two fold submissions, viz.,

(i) The accident took place only because of the negligence on the part of the victim. Alternatively, the victim was also guilty of contributory

negligence.

(ii) The Tribunal has erred in fixing the compensation at Rs. 1,60,000.

The fact that the accident took place at 7.30 A.M. on 9.12.1993 is not in dispute. The bus was plying in Route No. 44 and proceeding from

south to north in Suryanarayana Chetty Street. As per Ex.P-5 sketch, the width of the road is 13.20 mts. and there is a foot path to a width of

1.10 mts. on the, western side and 1 meter on the eastern side. There is a divider in the middle of the road. The western half of the road is roughly

6.60 meters in width. Similar is the width of the eastern half. The bus, which was a Limited Stop Service bus, was proceeding from south to north.

The pedestrian was crossing the road from west to east. If one looks at the sketch Ex.P-5, it could be seen that the body of the deceased was

found near the front right wheel and not the left as claimed in the counter statement. Both from the evidence of PW-2 as well as the sketch, it could

be seen that the victim had almost crossed and about to reach the road divider. If really the bus was driven by the driver at a speed of 20 K.M.

per hour, certainly, he could have brought the bus to a halt, seeing the victim crossing the road suddenly. While appreciating the case of the

respective parties, this Court has to bear in mind that it is a straight road as could be seen from the materials available on record.

The above aspects would rather persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that the occurrence took place only because of the rash and

negligent driving of the bus by the driver of the bus, belonging to the Corporation. This Court also has taken into consideration the fact that at that

hour viz., 7.30 A.M., there could not have been a heavy traffic flow. Equally this Court is not inclined to accept that the driver of the bus drove the

vehicle only at 20 KMPH, when admittedly the bus was plying in Route No. 44 with Limited Stopping Service.

The next question is as to whether there is substance in the claim of the Corporation that the victim had also contributed because he crossed the

road not in the pedestrian crossing line but at a place of his own choice.

PW-2, in his evidence, has stated that in the Road, no space has been set apart, indicating the place where the pedestrians have to cross. Even

otherwise, it cannot be said that simply because the victim crossed the road at a place other than the pedestrian crossing, it should be taken that he

had contributed for the accident. It cannot be said that whenever a person crosses the road at a place other than the pedestrian crossing, he is

guilty of contributory negligence.

Coining to the quantum, the Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the basis that he would have earned Rs. 100 per day and twenty days in a

month. Out of the income of Rs. 2,000, he would have contributed at least a sum of Rs. 1,300 to the respondents/claimants. Even adopting the

multiplier 9, the figure can be Rs. 1,40,000. With this, we have to add for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, apart from funeral

expenses. In such an event, fixation of Rs. 1,60,000 by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher side. The Tribunal is right in fixing the

compensation at Rs. 1,60,000 and further holding that the interest payable is at 12% per annum.

Consequently, there are no merits in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

.