AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Murgesen, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No. 397 of 2007 dated
06.11.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Pudukottai.
The brief facts arising out of this appeal are as under:
On 21.02.2007, the deceased Ganesan was travelling as a pillion rider in a TVS-50 two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-55-T-2752,
returning from Sethangudi. When they tried to enter into a road towards left side to reach the Pudukottai-Aranthangi Main Road, a bus bearing
Registration No. TN-55-N-0451 belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed against the two-wheeler, due to which the deceased Ganesan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The rider of the
two-wheeler also died due to the accident. The respondents herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesan, claimed a compensation of
Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.1 were examined and Ex. P1 to P4 were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record,
the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,02,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as
under:
Rupees
Loss of income 3,75,000/-
Loss of consortium 10,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 2,000/-
--------------
Total... 4,02,000/-
==============
Challenging the award of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the
accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. He
further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is high and therefore, the same has to be reduced.
The respondents / claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesan. P.W. 2 is the eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 has categorically
stated that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The driver was examined as R.W. 1. He
denied the case of the claimants. He has not given the complaint to the Police. It is the duty of the driver of the bus to lodge a complaint, but he did
not do so. On the other hand, the complaint was given by P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has no grievance against R.W. 1. There is no reason to reject the
evidence of P.W. 2. Nothing is elicited from the evidence of R.W. 1 to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2. On a careful consideration of the
evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. Hence the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation is confirmed.
With regard to compensation, the victim was 55 years old at the time of death due to accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier that should be
adopted is 11. The deceased was an agriculturist. Even though it was claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, no
evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. So, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned at least a sum of Rs.
150/- per day even as a coolie and he would have given Rs. 125/- to the family, out of that amount. The Tribunal also was of the view that the
deceased would have worked for a minimum period of 25 days in a month. Accordingly, the Tribunal calculated the monthly income at Rs. 3,125/-
(Rs. 125/- x 25 days) and the annual income at Rs. 37,500/- and after adopting the multiplier of 10, arrived at Rs. 3,75,000/- towards loss of
income. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the daily, monthly and annual income of the deceased. Even though the multiplier that should be
adopted for the deceased is 11, taking into consideration the age of the claimants together with the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has correctly
adopted 10 multiplier and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 3,75,000/-. Therefore I find no reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,75,000/- towards loss of income, stands confirmed.
The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads, namely, loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased, loss of love and affection to
the son and daughters of the deceased and funeral expenses, are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed.
In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,02,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed and
accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 are closed. No costs.