The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Meenakshiammal and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, against the award and

decree dated 05.08.2002 made in M.C.O.P. No. 894 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fifth Small Causes Court,

Chennai.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 20.04.1994 at about 16.30 hours, the deceased Palanivel was travelling in the Respondent''s bus bearing Registration No. TCB 4813 from

Taramani to Adyar, while the bus was nearing the Womens Technical Education Centre, the driver all of a sudden had driven the bus in a reckless

manner, resulting that the deceased got thrown out from the bus and succumbed to his injuries. Hence the legal heirs of the deceased namely, wife

and children filed the claim petition against the Respondent and claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest.

The Respondent had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The Respondent stated that the accident had occurred on

20.04.1994, but the O.P. was numbered in the year 1998, as such the claimants are entitled to receive interest from the date of numbering the

petition and not from the date of presentation. Actually, the deceased was a foot board traveler and he tried to attempt in getting down from the

moving bus, as such he invited the accident. The age, income and occupation are denied.

On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely;

(i) Who was responsible for the accident?

(ii)Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so what is the quantum of compensation?

On the side of the claimants three witnesses had been examined and seven documents were marked. On the side of the Respondent, the driver

was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.

PW1 had adduced evidence that she is the wife of the deceased and the other claimants are children of the deceased. At the time of the

accident, the deceased was 53 years old and he was engaged as a conductor in the Thiruvallur Transport Corporation. Immediately after the

accident, the deceased was admitted at Malar Hospital, wherein he had undergone treatment for a period of 12 days, subsequently, he had

expired, since the treatment was not effective. She had spent a sum of Rs. 85,000/- for medical expenses. In order to prove the claim, she had

marked legal heir certificate, medical bills series, FIR, school transfer certificate, salary certificate, death certificate and accident report.

After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%. As per the

assessment of the compensation, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation a sum of Rs.

4,73,100/- but the claimants had claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- only, so the same was awarded.

Aggrieved by the said ward the Appellant has filed the above appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the accident was invited by the deceased, while he was travelling on the foot-board and

attempted to alight from the moving bus. The PW2, eyewitness was a created evidence, as such the award is not proper.

Learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased''s age was 53 and was a conductor in the transport Corporation and his salary

was Rs. 5,000/- including daily batta collection. The claimants are 5 in number, the original claim amount was calculated at a sum of Rs.

4,73,100/- with interest, but the claimant claimed Rs. 4,00,000/-, the same was restructured and awarded.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned

award, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased''s age was 53 years and his monthly salary was Rs. 3473/- and claimants number

five. Considering consortium, love and affection, medical expenses, funeral expenses and loss of income, the quantum of compensation is not on

the higher side. Therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the impugned award of the Tribunal. Hence, it is confirmed as fair and

equitable.

It is open to the claimants to withdraw the apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 894 of

1998, on the file of Fifth Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out of application in accordance with law, subject to

withdrawals if any made already.

Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal on the file of Fifth Small Causes Court, Chennai, made in M.C.O.P. No. 894 of 1998, dated 05.08.2002 is confirmed. There is no order

as to costs.