Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Seshammal and 7 others

R. Balasubramanian, J.—The appellant in this appeal is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No. LWWO on the tile of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, (Sub Judge) Chengalpattu. The respondents in this appeal are the petitioners in that proceeding. In this judgment, the parties to this

appeal are referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the proceedings before the Court. A person by name Babu met with his end

at 5:15 P.M., on 10-12-1979 at Manimangalam road junction near Karsangal on the Vandalur-Wallajah road involving the bus bearing No. TMN

1507 belonging to the respondent is not in dispute. However, the controversy is only with reference to the fact as to who is responsible for the

accident either each exclusively or both contributing equally. The first petitioner is the mother, the second petitioner is the widow and the other

petitioners who were minors on the date of the accident, are the children of the deceased Babu. According to the Claim Petition, he was going on

a cycle on the left side of the road (which is his correct side). The bus referred to above was also proceeding in the same direction and it was

driven in such a rash and negligent manner, it hit against the deceased causing injuries to him. In support of the question as to how the accident look

place, the claimants have examined P.W.2. He claims to have witnessed the entire accident and according to him, the deceased who was going

ahead in that road on the left side of the road was hit from behind by the speeding bus of the respondent. As against this evidence, the driver of the

bus had given evidence as R.W.1. He would slate that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident in that, he had suddenly taken a right

turn without noticing the vehicle coming from behind. However, the Tribunal chose to accept the evidence of P.W.2. and rejected the evidence of

R.W.1. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as against a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed.

Questioning the correctness of this judgment, both on the ground of negligence and on the ground of the quantum of compensation, the

respondent before the lower Court, had filed this appeal. Not satisfied with the award passed, the claimants before the lower court have filed cross

objections for that portion of the amount which was disallowed.

I heard Mr. G. Munitratnam learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal and for the respondent in the cross-objections as well as

Mr. C. Lakshminarain learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this appeal and for cross objectors.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that on the facts of this case and evidence made available before the Court, it is not

possible to hold that the driver of the respondent bus alone was responsible for the accident. According to the learned counsel the evidence

disclosed that the driver of the respondent - bus cannot at all be held responsible and in any event, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the

deceased also should be held equally responsible to the accident. He would state that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be believed because, he had

neither given a report to the police and his presence at the site of the accident is not free from doubt. P.W.2 would stale in the chief examination

that he was examined by the police whereas in the cross-examination he would deny such examination. On the contrary, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents in this appeal would urge that the finding rendered by the learned trial Judge on the issue of negligence is well

supported by the evidence on record and therefore, there is no need to interfere with such a well considered finding.

To appreciate the rival contentions of both the counsel, it has become necessary for me to go into the pleadings as well as the oral evidence. In the

claim petition, it is clearly staled that the deceased was going on the left side of the road and the speeding bus coming from behind hit against him.

In the written statement filed by the respondent it is staled that the deceased was proceeding ahead of the bus and suddenly crossed the road in a

rash and negligent manner; seeing that the driver swerved the vehicle and slopped the bus immediately. Thereafter, the eye list himself came and hit

against the bus. In any event, plea of contributory negligence was also taken. In the face of the pleadings, I have examined the evidence of P.W.2

and R.W.1. As far as the manner in which the accident had taken place. P.W.2 would state that the deceased was going ahead in his cycle on the

proper side of the road and it was only the speeding vehicle of the respondent which hit him from behind. This evidence of P.W.2 is in accordance

with the pleadings of the claimants. However, R.W.1 would stale in his chief examination that the deceased who was going ahead of him on the

road, suddenly came across the bus and that he noticed him so doing about 5 to 10 feel ahead of him. Immediately he turned the bus to the right

and stopped it and that the deceased came into contact with the toot board of the bus at the rear side. This piece of evidence given in chief

examination by R.W.1 appears to be directly contrary to the pleadings taken in the written statement. The witness noticing the deceased at a

distance of 5 to 10 feel crossing the road ahead of him is not mentioned in the written statement. Secondly, the deceased coming into contact with

the foot-board at the rear-side of the bus is also not mentioned in the written statement. However, the consistent plea and the evidence is that the

deceased suddenly crossed the road and though the driver, R.W.1 brought the vehicle to a hall by turning to the right, yet the deceased came into

contact with the bus. If this stand taken by the respondent before the lower court that the deceased himself coming into contact with the bus alter

the bus was brought to a halt is true, then the deceased would not have sustained the nature of the injuries he sustained in this case as could be

seen from Ex.P-4 the postmortem certificate. The deceased has sustained lacerated injury on the right side of back of head; fracture involving right

temporal and parietal bones; depressed fracture right parietal bone; fracture in the back portion of right temporal bone; separation of right temporal

parietal; fracture of right collarbone; complete fracture of first rib of right side of chest; fracture involving middle portion of base of skull on both

sides including the central bone and bone extensive sub-dural sub-arachnoid haemorrhage all over the brain. From the nature of injuries, it could be

so easily visualised the force of the impact when the deceased and the bus came into contact with each other. Under these circumstances, I have

no hesitation at all in rejecting the defence pleaded by the respondent before the lower Court. Therefore, according to me the learned trial judge

correctly decided the issue of negligence against the respondent and for the reasons stated by me, the said finding is sustained. Coming to the

question of deciding what would be the proper compensation payable, it is seen that the deceased was aged 39 years on the dale of the accident.

He was employed as a cleaner in the respondent establishment itself on a monthly salary of Rs. 710/-. He left behind a large family. The possibility

of the deceased earning an increased amount in the course of time to come, shall also be taken into account. Therefore, following the guidelines

adumbrated in the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok

Chandra and Others, I have proceeded to analyse the compensation payable to the claimants. The salary which he was drawing was rounded off

to Rs. 500/- per month. By that lime he retires, if he has been allowed to do so, he would have been drawing not less that Rs. 1,000/- per month.

Therefore adding Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- together, a sum of Rs. 1,500/- is arrived at. This sum divided by two results in a sum of Rs. 750/- per

month. Going by unit wise ,including the deceased, there being three adults, a total number of 12 units are arrived at. Dividing Rs. 750/- by 12, the

value per unit comes to Rs. 62.50/-. This again is rounded off to Rs. 65/- and thus a sum of Rs. 130/- has to be necessarily deducted towards the

personal expenses of the deceased himself. To this, a further sum of Rs. 70/- is added and thus the deceased would have been spending a total

sum of Rs. 200/- out of Rs. 750/- per month towards his personal expenses. From Rs. 750/-, this Rs. 200/- is deducted, then the family would

continue to have a sum of Rs. 550/- per month. On this, the annual dependency is arrived at Rs. 6,600/-. Adopting a multiplier of 14 years, the

compensation works out to Rs. 92,400/-. The widow is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and therefore, the total sum

which becomes payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,02,400/-. However, since the claim itself was filed only for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the

award amount decided by me is also restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/-. This sum of rupees one lakh shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date

of the petition till date of realisation. Any amount deposited by the judgment-debtors under the original award as it stands still today, shall be taken

into account while arriving at their liability under the judgment of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

Cross Objections is allowed as prayed for. However, there will be no order as to costs both in the appeal as well as in the Cross Objections.