AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant the State Transport Corporation Limited, against the award and decree made in MCOP No. 102 of 2004 dated 21.09.2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai, for awarding compensation of Rs. 2,93,940/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) together with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of compensation.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 29.12.2003, the deceased after finishing his work, came along with his friend one Palanivelu on their cycle at about 7.30 p.m on the road and when they were nearing Kudimian reservoir garden, at that time, the respondent bus bearing Registration No. TN-555-N-0276 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Kannaiah. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, wherein he died. The claimants further narrated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and his occupation was Mason and as such, he was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month. The said accident case was registered in the Annavasal Police Station in Crime No. 293 of 2003 for the alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) IPC against the driver of the respondent Corporation bus.
The first claimant is the wife of the deceased, the second claimant is the son of the deceased, the third claimant is the daughter of the deceased and the fourth claimant is the mother of the deceased. The claimants had further stated that the deceased is the only bread winner of the family and the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased. As such, the claimants claimed Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation with 15% interest against the respondent Transport Corporation.
The respondent Corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim of the compensation. The respondent has stated in the counter statement that the deceased and his friend one Palanivelu both came on the middle of the road and the deceased rode his cycle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus and hence, the accident had happened.
The learned Counsel for the respondent further stated that due to negligence of the deceased, the said accident had happened and as such contributory negligence is involved in this case. Further, the respondent denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The respondent also stated that the claim amount is excessive. As such, the respondent prayed before the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.
After considering the claim petition and counter statement of the respondent, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai, framed the issues namely:
a) Whether the respondent''s bus driver is responsible for the accident or the deceased was the cause for the accident?
b) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the side of the claimants PW.1 widow of the deceased was examined and the PW.2 Kudiminathan was examined. On the side of the claimants, there are six documents marked as Ex.P1 to P6 namely:
Ex.P1 - First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P2 - Motor Vehicle Report Ex.P3 - Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P4 - Handicapped Identity Card Ex.P5 - Family Ration Card Ex.P6 - Legal Heir Certificate
On the side of the respondents, one Padmanathan was examined as RW.1. No documentary evidence was marked on the side of the respondents.
After considering the evidence of the claimants and documentary evidence and also considering the respondent''s evidence, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent''s bus driver. As such, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai, after considering the legal heir certificate, has come to the conclusion that all the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. PW.1 had adduced the evidence stating that her husband deceased Kannaiah was working as a Mason, besides he was also involved in seasonal agricultural operations, hence his earning of Rs. 3,000/- per month. She adduced further evidence that her husband being aged 45 years at the time of the accident. The learned Sub-Judge after considering the evidence has come to the conclusion that the deceased''s income was Rs. 2,000/- per month and his age was 45 years.
After deducting 1/3rd being the personal expenditure of the deceased, 2/3rd amount was as contribution to the claimants. Hence, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,39,940/- under the head of Loss of Income after considering the age and income of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants under the head of loss of Love and Affection and further awarded Rs. 4,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, in total the learned Sub-Judge awarded Rs. 2,93,940/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of compensation.
Further, the Tribunal permitted the 4th claimant i.e, mother of the deceased to withdraw a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The balance amount of compensation of Rs. 2,53,940/- has to be divided by the three others equally. The Tribunal further directed that the said compensation amount has to be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of three years under the fixed deposit scheme. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded the compensation.
Having not been satisfied the award and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai, in MCOP No. 102 of 2004 dated 21.09.2006, the appellant filed this appeal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai, has come to the conclusion that the deceased income of Rs. 2,000/- is reasonable in the absence of the income proof.
The learned Counsel for the claimant further pointed out that the claimants are four in numbers as such 1/4th amount has to be deducted instead of 1/3rd amount. The learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the adoption method for calculating the compensation under the head of loss of income is erroneous. The Tribunal also had not awarded sufficient compensation under the head of funeral expenses. He further pointed out that the deceased is only the bread winner of the family and the claimants are depending only on the deceased''s income. The first claimant is a young widow of the deceased, the 4th claimant is the aged mother of the deceased. In any event the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, the learned Counsel for the claimants are seeking for compensation by way of appeal.
The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that in the absence of income proof, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased''s income was Rs. 2,000/- which is proper. Considering the age of the deceased and dependencies of the deceased, the Tribunal awarding Rs. 2,93,940/- is proper. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai, after considering the evidence of the claimants and the respondents, the age, occupation and income of the deceased, properly granted the award. He further pointed out that the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head of Consortium to the first claimant i.e., widow of the deceased and again awarded Rs. 10,000/- to the first claimant/widow of the deceased under the head of loss of Love and Affection which is not pertinent in the incident case. As such Rs. 10,000/- is scaled down from the compensation. Hence, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not sustainable under the law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of the appellant and the respondents, this Court is of the view that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai award of compensation Rs. 2,93,940/- together with 7.5% per annum interest, is fair and equitable. There are no discrepancies in the said award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai.
This Court granted an interim stay on 14-02-2008 on condition that the appellant Transport Corporation will deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Pudukottai.
As the accident had happened in the year 2004, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, after filing necessary application in accordance with law subject to had withdrawals if any, made already.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2004 dated 21-09-2006 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P (MD) No. 3 of 2008 is closed.