AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2007, dated 30.11.2007 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupattur (FTC).
The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 13.06.2002, when the (deceased) Mohammed Tamizuddin was riding his ''Hero Puch'' motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN23-W-1086 and was proceeding opposite to the TAW ''E'' Tannery at Sandror Kuppam on the extreme left of the road, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN29-N-138, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, overtook a ''bore well'' lorry proceeding ahead of it and dashed against the motorcycle of the (deceased) Mohammed Tamizuddin. The deceased Mohammed Tamizuddin sustained injuries on his forehead, face and cheek as well as his right leg and left knee and was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Ambur for first aid and subsequently admitted in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. In spite of treatment, the (deceased) Mohammed Tamizuddin succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the Petitioners, who are the legal-heirs of the deceased have filed a claim for Rs. 8,35,000/- against the Respondents, who are the driver and owner of the bus bearing Registration No. TN29-N-138.
The second Respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, in his counter, has denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation as well as nature of injuries and treatment taken by deceased. It was also stated that there was No. negligence on the part of the second Respondent''s driver. Further, as the owner and insurer of the motorcycle have not been impleaded as necessary parties in the claim, it renders the claim not maintainable. It was stated that the claim was excessive.
On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, namely;
(i)On whose negligence was the accident caused?
(ii)Are the Respondents liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners?
(iii)If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the Petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5, viz., First Information Report, Post-mortem report, letter given by the (deceased) to his office intimating his date of joining duty; the conduct and salary certificate issued by the Office Manager of the Company, where the deceased had worked. On the Respondents side, one witness was examined and No. documents were marked.
On scrutiny of Ex.P1, First Information Report, it is seen that the deceased, while returning from his office, i.e., UNSC Tannery and riding his Hero puch motorcycle and proceeding towards his house, on the Chennai-Calicut National Highway, and when he was opposite to TAW ''E'' Tannery, a bullock cart was going ahead of his vehicle. A ''bore well'' lorry was coming in the opposite direction and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus was coming behind the ''bore well'' lorry. At this point of time, the driver of the said bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and overtook the ''bore well'' lorry going ahead of him, and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased Mohammed Tamizuddin. The driver of the Respondent bus was examined as RW1. RW1 adduced evidence that at the spot where the accident took place, a bullock cart was going ahead of the motorcyclist and when the motorcycle had tried to overtake the bullock cart, he had dashed his motorcycle against the front of the bus. It is seen from evidence of RW1, that he had not mentioned that above lorry was proceeding in front of his bus. As the averments in the First Information Report and the evidence given by RW1 were contradictory, the Tribunal were not inclined to accept the evidence of RW1. PW2, the eyewitness of the accident and who had travelled as the pillion rider in the motorcycle of the (deceased) had adduced evidence which was in consonance with the averments made in the First Information Report, regarding manner of accident. She had further adduced evidence that both the (deceased) Mohammed Tamizuddin and she had sustained injuries and that she had admitted the (deceased) Mohammed Tamizuddin at the Government Hospital, Ambur and had subsequently taken him to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P1, the First Information Report and evidence of PW2 held that the accident had been caused by the first Respondent and hence held the second Respondent liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
From a scrutiny of the postmortem report, marked as Ex.P2, it is seen that the age of the deceased was 21 years. Further from scrutiny of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, salary certificate, it is seen that the deceased had been working as a Supervisor in Vhesco Shoe Company and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month. As the owner of the said company has not been examined to prove this salary, the Tribunal held that the deceased could have earned Rs. 3,000/- per month. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 3,000 x 1/3 x 2 x 12 x 15) to the Petitioners as loss of income to the Petitioners. The Tribunal directed the second Respondent, to deposit the award with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order.
Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the Appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division-II, Dharmapuri, has filed the present appeal to set-aside the award passed.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in adopting a multiplier of "15" and that they have not considered the second schedule. Further, it was pointed out that as the deceased was a bachelor, the deduction for personal expenses should be more. It was also argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider that the deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently.
The learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased''s income was Rs. 3,500/- per month and he was working as a Supervisor in a Private Company and his age was 21 years. The claimants are five in numbers and all are depending on the income of the deceased. In the fatal case, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the heads of ''love and affection'' and ''funeral expenses''. These heads were not considered. The First Information Report had been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. In order to establish the claim petition, regarding quantum of compensation and age of deceased, two vital documents have also been marked viz., salary certificate and death certificate.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned Counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was an earning member aged about 21 years, the claimants are five in numbers; the accident took place in the year 2003, therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded i.e., a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- is not on the higher side. Therefore, this Court confirms the learned Tribunal''s impugned award, as it is found to be fair and justifiable.
On 19.09.2008, this Court imposed a condition on the Appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupattur (FTC). Now, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, as per ratio fixed by the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupattur (FTC), after filing a Memo along with this order.
Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2007, dated 30.11.2007 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupattur (FTC) is confirmed. There is No. order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.