AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed C.M.A. No. 343 of 2007 and the claimants filed the C.M.A. No.
445 of 2007 against the Award and Decree, dated 07.06.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. V, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of the compensation.
Both the appeals arising out of the same Judgment, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common Judgment.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 20.02.2001, at about 13.30 hours the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN02 E2080 from
east to west on the Greenways road, in front of RBF Nidhi Ltd., Chennai. At that time, the metropolitan transport corporation bus bearing
registration No. TN01 N2316 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering the public safety came at a dangerous speed from
the same direction and hit the motorcycle from behind and thus caused this fatal accidents the pillion rider of the motorcycle. The claimants are the
parents of the deceased. The accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Ltd., As such, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
The respondent/Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., in their Counter, had resisted the claim petition, which reads as follows:
The respondent states that on 20.02.2001 MTC bus route No. 22A registration No. TN01 N2316 was on its trip from Ambattur Estate to
Thiruvanmiyur. The bus was proceeding along Greenways road, when the bus was going near RBF building, a motor cycle along with a lady as
pillion rider was also proceeding on the left side of the bus and he was also engaged conversation with another motorcyclist (Kinetic Honda) and in
that course colluding with each other and the rider of motor cycle going with the pillion rider lost his balance and the pillion rider (deceased) fell
down near the wheel and the impugned accident took place. This accident happened only due to the careless and negligent riding of motorcyclist
alone and the MTC driver was not responsible the accident and consequently this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation much less than
the compensation claimed in the claim petition.
The respondent further submits that in fact the rider of the motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider from the scene of the
accident and the other motorcyclist who was engaged conversation also left from the place of the accident. Because of the guilty conscience of the
rider of the motor cycle, he sped away from that place.
The respondent further states that the rider of the motorcycle in which the deceased was pillion rider riding was not having a valid licence to ride a
motorcycle and because of his in experienced riding, he had caused this accident.
The respondent further denies that the deceased was employed as lecturer and he was earning Rs. 6,000/- and put the petitioner in strict proof of
the same. Further there is inconsistency in the averments in claim statement that the deceased was a lecturer and also self employed. The
respondent denies all these averments in claim statement that the deceased was a lecturer and also self employed. The respondent denies all these
averments and call upon the petitioner to prove each and every claim with documentary evidence.
The respondent prayed accordingly.
The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Who is responsible for the accident?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the petitioners'' side, the first claimant was examined as PW1, Investigating Officer V.P. Sivaraman was examined as PW2, one Palani was
examined as PW3 and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 namely Ex.P1-Legalheir Certificate, Ex.P2-Post Mortem Report, Ex.P3-
Voters Identity Card, Ex.P4-M.A. Convocation Certificate, Ex.P5-M. Phil Convocation Certificate, Ex.P6-Letter issued by University, Ex.P7-
Appointment Order, Ex.P8-Amruth Hindi Certificate, Ex.P9-Copy of First Information Report, Ex.P10-Copy of Rough Sketch. On the
respondents'' side the driver of the bus B. Nazeer was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked.
PW1, first claimant, had adduced evidence stating that on 20.03.2001 at about 12 noon the respondent''s Corporation bus had been driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her daughter, with the result she died. Further, she had adduced evidence stating that
the deceased was her daughter and she was unmarried. The second claimant is the father of the deceased. Before the accident, she was Lecturer
in Government Arts College at Tiruttani and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The first claimant''s age was 51 years and the second
claimant''s age was 59 years.
PW2, Investigating Officer V.P. Sivaraman had adduced evidence stating that the respondent''s Corporation bus rear wheel ran over the
deceased.
PW3, Palani had adduced evidence stating that the respondent''s Corporation bus came behind the motorcycle and dashed it, with the result,
the motorcyclist died on the spot.
RW1, B. Nazeer, driver of the bus had adduced evidence stating that the rider of the motorcycle tried to overtake another motorcyclist. While
travelling in parallel, he lost his control and fell towards the rear side of the bus wheel. The said accident case was registered against the driver
RW1 and First Information Report was marked as Ex.P9.
After considering the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and RW1 and documents, which were marked as exhibits, the learned Tribunal had come
to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent''s Corporation bus,
therefore the respondent/Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., is liable to pay compensation and the Tribunal had fixed the income of the
deceased at Rs. 4,500/-, after deducting 1/3rd share for personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- including Rs. 10,000/-
under the head of funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit
the compensation amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the
date of payment of compensation, within a period of two months from the date of its order. In turn, the said amount to be deposited, under a fixed
deposit scheme, in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Further, the Tribunal apportioned a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the first claimant,
Rs. 1,00,000/- to the second claimant. Accordingly ordered.
Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, dated 07.06.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. V, Chennai, the appellant/Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the above C.M.A. No. 343 of
2007, praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal and having not been satisfied with the said award and decree the
claimants have filed the C.M.A.445 of 2007 praying for additional compensation.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in C.M.A.343 of 2007 and respondent in C.M.A. No. 445 of 2007 argued that the
compensation amount under the heads of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are on higher side. Further, the Tribunal had erroneously
fastened the liability on the driver of the bus. The Tribunal had failed to note that the rider of the motorcycle, in which the deceased was seated and
fell down from the seat. Hence, the learned Counsel prays before this Court to scale down the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the respondents in C.M.A.343 of 2007 and appellants in C.M.A. No. 445 of 2007 argued that the deceased was
working as a Lecturer in College and she was possessing higher academic qualifications. Her income was Rs. 10,000/- and above, but the
Tribunal had not properly considered the income of the deceased. The quantum of compensation is on the lower side. Therefore, the learned
Counsel prays before this Court for higher compensation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and the award
and decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation is on the lower side, considering the age, income
and occupation as a Lecturer of a College. Therefore, this Court enhance the compensation as follows:
i. This Court fixes the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month. After deducing 1/3rd share as personal expenses of the deceased,
adopted the multiplier method 11 and grants compensation of Rs. 5,94,000/- under the head of loss of income,
ii. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, this Court confirms the same as it is pertinent,
iii. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, this Court confirms the same as it is pertinent,
In total, this Court awards a compensation of Rs. 6,44,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim
petition, till the date of payment of compensation. After deducting the original award amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, this Court awards an additional
award amount of Rs. 1,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of
compensation.
On 22.02.2007, this Court directed the appellant/respondent in C.M.A. No. 343 of 2007 to deposit 50% of the compensation amount, into
the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 1124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. V, Chennai. Now, this
Court hereby directs the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., to deposit the remaining compensation amount, as per the findings of this
Court, with accrued interest thereon, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 1124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small
Causes Court No. V, Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned compensation amount equally with accrued interest
thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 1124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. V,
Chennai, by making proper payment out application, subject to the deduction of earlier withdrawals, if any, in accordance with law.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 343 of 2007 is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 445 of 445 of 2007is partly allowed and the
Award and Decree, dated 07.06.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes
Court No. V, Chennai is modified. No costs.