The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs M. Devi

S. Manikumar, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, and the quantum of compensation of Rs.27,07,312/-, with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till deposit, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.

Facts, leading to the filing of the appeal, are, that on 17.05.2013, about 21.30 hours, while the deceased Murugan was riding a Hero Honda Motorcycle, bearing Registration No.PY-01-BD2671, from south to north, on the left side of Cuddalore to Puducherry Road, in front of Puthukoil, Kandanpettai, Kirumampakkam, a Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474,which came from behind, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, the motorcyclist Murugan sustained injuries and died on the spot. In this regard, a case in crime No.95 of 2013, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, has been registered on the file of Traffic (Rural) Police Station, Puducherry.

According to the respondents/claimants, wife and two minor children, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and employed in Eid Parry (India) Limited, Nellikuppam, earning Rs.23,000/- per month. The respondents/claimants claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Transport Corporation filed a counter affidavit and opposed the claim petition, denying the manner of accident. According to them, when the Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, was proceeding from Pondicherry to Karaikkal, near Kattukuppam Puthukoil Kandampettai, the motorcyclist was proceeding in the opposite direction of the road; he was riding the vehicle, in a zig zag manner; on seeing the same, driver of the bus slowed down the bus, but the motorcyclist dashed against the bus, and thus invited the accident. Thus, they disputed the manner of accident, averred by the respondents/claimants, and, on the contra, submitted that it was the motorcyclist, who caused the accident. Without prejudice to the same, they also disputed the age, avocation, income and quantum of compensation, awarded under various heads.

To prove the manner of accident, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. P.W.2 is the eye-witness; P.W.3 is the Welfare Officer of Eid Parry (India) Limited, Nellikuppam, who has spoken about the employment and income, earned by the deceased, at the time of accident. Ex.P-1-xerox copy of FIR; Ex.P-2-xerox copy of MVI Report; Ex.P- 3-xerox copy of Postmortem Certificate of deceased; Ex.P-4-xerox copy of death certificate; Ex.P-5-xerox copy of judgment and decree; Ex.P-6-xerox copy of RC of TNSTC bus; Ex.P-7-xerox copy of Driving Licence of TNSTC bus driver; Ex.P-8- xerox copy of RC of the deceased''s motorcycle; Ex.P-9-xerox copy of insurance policy of deceased''s motorcycle; Ex.P-10-xerox copy Driving Licence of the deceased; Ex.P- 11-xerox copy of deceased''s Job ID Card; Ex.P-12-original certificate of the deceased, issued by his employer; Ex.P-13-xerox copy of Form 16 (2011-2012); Ex.P-14-xerox copy of Form 16 (2012-2013); Ex.P-15-xerox copy of Form 16 (01.04.2013 to 17.05.2013); Ex.P-16-xerox copy of PAN Card; and Ex.P-17-xerox copy of charge sheet, have been marked on the side of respondents/claimants. On the side of appellant corporation, driver of Transport Corporation bus, involved in the accident, examined himself as R.W.1, and refuted the manner of accident.

Evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that it is the driver of the appellant corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN- 68-N-0474, who was negligent in causing the accident. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants to prove the age, avocation, and income of the deceased at the time of accident, the Tribunal, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court, awarded compensation of Rs.27,07,312/-, with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, and apportioned the same to the respondents/claimants.

The primary challenge in this appeal by the Transport Corporation is, to the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the Corporation bus, on the grounds, inter alia, that the said finding is solely on the basis of FIR, registered against the driver, and that it has failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, driver of the bus, in proper perspective. In addition to the above, Mr. D. Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant corporation, submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have rejected the testimony of P.W.2, who is an interested witness. On the quantum of compensation, it is the submission of the learned cousel for the corporation, that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.18,251/-, based on the income-tax certificate and further erred in adding 30% towards future prospects.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

Before the Claims Tribunal, P.W.1, wife, though was not an eyewitness to the accident, yet, has spoken about the same. FIR in Crime No.95 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC has been registered against the driver of the corporation bus. P.W.2, stated to be the eye-witness, has deposed that on the date of accident, about 09.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on the left side of the road, from south to north, near Puthukoil, Kandanpettai, Kirumampakkam, he saw the deceased motorcyclist, proceeding on a motorcycle in the same direction, and, at that time, a Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, which came from behind, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the motorcycle, and, thus, the accident occurred. Though the Corporation has contended that it was the motorcyclist, who drove the vehicle in a zig zag manner, dashed against the right side of the bus, it is not corroborated. On the contra, the evidence of the respondents/claimants is duly supported by the version of P.W.2, eyewitness, and corroborated by Ex.P-1, FIR.

In motor accident claims cases, finding on negligence is fixed after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, by applying the principle of preponderance of probability. Strict proof of evidence, as in the case of criminal case is not required. On the said proposition, it is worthwhile to extract a few decisions, as under.

In Union of India v. Saraswathi Debnath reported in 1995 ACJ 980, High Court of Gauhati has held in Paragraph 6 as follows:

"The law is well settled that in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the evidence should not be scrutinised in a manner as is done in a civil suit or a criminal case. In a civil case the rule is preponderance of probability and in a criminal case the rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to consider these niceties in a matter of accident claim case inasmuch as it is summary enquiry. If there is some evidence to arrive at the finding that itself is sufficient. No nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Claims Tribunal in deciding a motor accident claim case."

In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal RTC reported in 2009 (13) SCC 530, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."

Though Mr. T. Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant corporation contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing negligence on the driver of the corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding. Rebuttal evidence adduced is not strong and concrete and corroborated, to enable this Court to reverse the finding of the Tribunal.

It is the well settled law that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and it would be suffice to consider, whether there is any preponderance of probability, as to the manner of accident, as detailed in the claim petition. Strict proof of evidence is not required. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence cannot be termed as perverse or it is not a case of no evidence. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the corporation bus is confirmed.

On the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the respondents/claimants, that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years. After going through the entry in Ex.P-3, Postmortem Certificate, the Claims Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 44 years, which can be justified in terms of two decisions in Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, reported in 2004 (4) LW 20, and The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai v. Mary, [2005 (5) CTC 515], wherein, it has been held that determination of age on the basis of Ex.P3 - Post-Mortem Certificate, cannot be said to be faulty.

On the aspect of avocation that the deceased was working as a Grade Operator-III Regular in Eid Parry (India) Limited, Nellikuppam, and earning Rs.23,000/- at the time of accident, the respondents/claimants have produced Ex.P-11- xerox copy of deceased''s Job ID Card; Ex.P-12-original certificate of the deceased, issued by his employer; Ex.P-13-xerox copy of Form 16 (2011-2012); Ex.P-14-xerox copy of Form 16 (2012-2013); Ex.P-15-xerox copy of Form 16 (01.04.2013 to 17.05.2013); Ex.P-16-xerox copy of PAN Card in addition to the above, the respondents/claimants have examined the Welfare Officer of Eid Parry (India) Limited, Nellikuppam, as P.W.3, who, in his cross-examination, has stated that, as per Ex.P- 14, after deducting income-tax, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,19,020/-. The deceased had studied up to X standard. Thus, respondents/claimants have adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was a permanent employee in Eid Parry (India) Limited, Nellikuppam. Having regard to the age of the deceased, 44 years, and following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121; Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others, reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 641, and Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2014 ACJ 1430, the Claims Tribunal has computed the loss of dependency :

Monthly income of the deceased as per income tax (2,19,020x1/12)

Rs. 18,251/-

+ 30% for future prospects in 18251 + 30% (18251 + 5475=23726/-)

Rs. 5,475/-

Monthly income comes to

Rs. 23,726/-

The annual income comes to 23726 x 12 1/3rd for (3 family members)

Rs. 2,84,712/-

Rs.284712 x 1/3 = 94904 x 2//3 = 1898089/-

14 multiplier to be applied since

age of the deceased is 44 : 189808 x 14

Rs.26,57,312/-

Though the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the quantum of compensation on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased and made a provision for addition of income under head ''future prospects'', going through the material on record and the award impugned, we find that there is no manifest illegality or irregularity, in accepting the contentions of the respondents as regards the age, avocation, income, and the future prospects of the deceased. The method adopted by the Claims Tribunal for arriving at the loss of dependency does not require any interference. Loss of dependency is quantified at Rs.26,57,312/-. That apart, the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and a lesser sum of Rs.10,000/-, each to the minor children, for loss of love and affection. Sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- awarded for funeral expenses land transport charges respectively is less. Claim has been made for Rs.50,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has failed to award a just and reasonable compensation, towards the head ''loss of love and affection''. At the time of claim, minor children are stated to be aged 7 and 5 years respectively. Quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be windfall or bonanza for the wife and minor children.

Thus, for the reasons stated supra, finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the appellant corporation bus, bearing registration No.TN-68-N-0474, and the quantum of compensation of Rs.27,07,312/-, with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of claim till deposit, are confirmed.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Appellant corporation is directed to deposit the award amount with interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2565 of 2013, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court), Cuddalore, less the statutory deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. First respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, as per her share, apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. In so far as compensation apportioned to the minor children in the Claim Petition, the Claims Tribunal shall deposit their shares in a Nationalised Bank, until they attain majority. Interest accrued on the minor shares is permitted to be withdrawn by the guardian of minors, once in three months. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.