AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Chockalingam, J—The Transport Corporation is the appellant. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No. 98 of 2008, dated 26.07.2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.
The respondents 1 to 3/claimants being the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased respectively, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, in which it is stated on 23.02.2008, in the course of his employment, the deceased Subramanian drove the company vehicle namely Hero Honda Passion bearing registration No. TN 45 8032 along with Ashok as pillion rider and they were proceeding to Alavayal. While they were nearing M. Usilampatti at about 3.30 p.m. a bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation bearing registration number TN 45 0251 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, in which, both persons travelled in the two wheeler sustained injuries and they were immediately taken to Hospital, where the doctor declared that Subramanian died. In the claim petition it is further stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 30 years and working as Technical and Commercial Assistant and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and therefore, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation.
The appellant/respondent transport corporation filed counter by stating that the deceased only drove the vehicle in a careless manner by talking through cell phone and dashed against the bus. In these circumstances, the transport corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further, the age and income of the deceased are all denied by the appellant/respondent Transport corporation. Further, it is stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and on the higher side.
Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents/claimants, 1 witness was examined as PW 1 and marked 7 documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P7. On the side of the appellant/respondent Transport corporation bus, the driver of the appellant/respondent Transport corporation bus, is examined as RW 1 and one document was marked as Ex. R1.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and held that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent Transport corporation bus driver and awarded Rs. 14,99,288/- as compensation under the following heads:-
Aggrieved over the above said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/respondent Transport corporation has filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
Contending inter alia, the appellant transport corporation has stated that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and the Tribunal failed to consider the statement given by RW 1 and the document/Ex. R1 marked by the driver of the bus. The Tribunal ought to have fixed atleast contributory negligence upon the rider of the motorcycle/deceased. Further, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income and erroneously applied 17 multiplier.
The learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation contended that the negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation has not proved by examining any independent eye witnesses on the side of the claimants.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that First Information Report was registered only against the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. After investigation, charge sheet is also filed only against the driver of the appellant transport corporation, and the case is pending trial and the evidence of the RW 1 is not believable. In view of the above, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation.
Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
A bare reading of the First Information Report would go to show that as against the driver of the appellant transport corporation alone a case has been registered. After verification of the entire evidence and documents collected, the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the appellant transport corporation. Moreover, in the chief examination, the driver of the appellant transport corporation has deposed as follows;-
On the contrary, on the perusal of the Rough Sketch/Ex. P7 filed by the claimants, would go to show that Banyan tree was far away from the road, i.e. 45 feet from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of RW 1 is highly unbelievable and contrary to the Rough sketch/Ex. P7. Hence, the evidence of RW 1 is not at all acceptable. In respect of the photograph/Ex. R1 marked on the side of the transport corporation, no one was examined to prove at what time the photograph was taken and who are all the persons present at the time of taking the photograph. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the photograph marked as Ex. R1 on the side of the appellant transport corporation. Even though no eyewitness was examined on the side of the claimants, the appellant transport corporation bus driver has not given any police complaint against the deceased/rider of the motorcycle or pillion rider and hence the evidence of RW 1 is unbelievable. In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to reject the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation.
Further, the learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation contended that the Tribunal is not correct in fixing the age and income of the deceased to arrive the compensation towards loss of income. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal after verifying the documents, correctly fixed the age and income of the deceased and awarded just compensation towards loss of income. Therefore, he contended that the appeal may be dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal.
On perusal of the postmortem certificate/Ex. P2 would go to show that age of the deceased is 33 years. Since, there is no contrary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased on the side of the respondents/appellant, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the age of the deceased as 33. Similarly, on the basis of the income certificate/Ex. P6 marked on the side of the claimants, the Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 10,835.36/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,222/- and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 14,73,288/- as loss of income by adopting 17 multiplier, which is just and reasonable.
The learned counsel for appellant has not seriously objected the award passed by Tribunal in other heads. Further, it is just and reasonable compensation and hence, no need to interfere with the findings with regard to the other heads.
In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal made in MCOP No. 98 of 2008, dated 26.07.2014 is confirmed. It is represented that the Appellant Transport Corporation has deposited the entire award amount. Therefore, the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimant shall be deposited in a nationalized bank, proximate to the claimants'' residence and the mother of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest, once in three months. On attaining majority, it is open to the minor claimant to seek for disbursement of her share. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.