AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Murgesen, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decreetal order dated 2.4.2002 made in MCOP No. 117/97 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Periyakulam.
The brief facts arising out of this appeal are as under:
On 24.08.1995 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Mahalingam was proceeding in his bicycle on the Kondamanaickenpatti to Andipatti Road, along with one Ganapathy Nadar. When they reached near Kannan Rice Mill, a bus bearing Registration No. TN-59-N-0323 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the cycle, due to which the deceased Mahalingam sustained injuries and died on the spot. The wife and son of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.1 were examined and Ex.P1 to P3 were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,28,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees Loss of income 2,16,000/- Funeral expenses 2,000/- Loss of consortium 10,000/- -------------- Total ... 2,28,000/- ==============
Challenging the award of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Tribunal is wrong in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not correct.
Points for determination:
1) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, or not?
2) What is the just compensation to the claimants?
Point No. 1:
On 24.08.1995 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Mahalingam was proceeding in his bicycle on the Kondamanaickenpatti to Andipatti Road, along with one Ganapathy Nadar. When they reached near Kannan Rice Mill, a bus bearing Registration No. TN-59-N-0323 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the cycle, due to which the deceased Mahalingam sustained injuries and died on the spot. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. The body of the victim was sent for post mortem and Ex.P2 is the copy of Port Mortem Report. The accident did not occur due to mechanical defect which is evident from Ex.P3-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report.
It is the definite stand of the appellant that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. P.W.2 is the eye-witness to the accident. He gave the complaint-Ex.P1. He said that the vehicle was driven by the appellant''s bus driver in a rash and negligent manner. The proper person to deny the version of P.W.2 is the driver of the vehicle, who was examined as R.W.1. It is the duty of the driver to give complaint, but he has not done so. He left the scene of occurrence after the accident. In his evidence he said that the people came and attacked him and hence left the scene of occurrence. It is the duty of the driver to give complaint to the Police. If really he was chased by the crowd, certainly he would have rushed to the Police Station, but on the other hand, the complaint was given by P.W.2. P.W.2 has no grievance against R.W.1. Further the evidence of R.W.1 would nail the case of the appellant. On the date of accident, R.W.1 was to drive the vehicle from Andipatti to Usilampatti. The travelling time permitted from Andipatti to Usilampatti is 50 minutes. He took the bus from Andipatti at 5.40 p.m. The place of accident is 3 Kms from Andipatti. He had to reach Kondamanaickenpatti from Andipatti within 10 to 12 minutes, but he reached Kondamanaickenpatti only at 6.00 p.m., therefore he took 20 minutes to reach Kondamanaickenpatti. Thereafter, he had to cover a long distance within a period of 30 minutes to reach the destination. Therefore, it is clear that he had to drive at an enormous speed to reach the destination. His evidence would show that he drove the vehicle speedily on that day. There is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.1, it is crystal clear that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and accordingly the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, is confirmed. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Point No. 2:
As per the claim petition, the deceased was 30 years old at the time of death. P.W.1-the wife of the deceased had spoken that her husband was 31 years old at the time of death. For the age of 31 years, the proper multiplier that should be adopted in this case is 17. P.W.1 claimed that her husband was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, but no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned not less than Rs. 1,500/- per month and after adopting 18 multiplier and deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs. 1,500/- x 12 x 18 x 2/3) towards loss of income. The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly income, but the proper multiplier that should be adopted in this case is 17. If 17 multiplier is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs. 2,04,000/-. Accordingly, the loss of income stands modified to Rs. 2,04,000/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. Counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the son of the deceased. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the son of the deceased. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees Loss of income 2,04,000/- Funeral expenses 2,000/- Loss of consortium 10,000/- Loss of love and affection 10,000/- -------------- Total ... 2,26,000/- ==============
The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed.
In the result, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 2,26,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.