This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/State Transport Corporation against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2014, dated 07.11.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Madurai.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:
It is a case of fatal accident took place on 20.09.2013 at about 10.00p.m., when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the Hero Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-W-6487, driven by one Praveen Kumar (another deceased) from North to South towards Madurai from Melur and as the two wheeler was coming near the Madurai High Court, the respondent's bus, who is the appellant herein, bearing Registration No.TN-01- AN-0082 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained head injuries and multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot and the driver of the two wheeler also sustained head injuries and he also succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and he was earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day by working as supplier in a Hotel. Therefore, the claimants, who are the mother and the brother of the deceased, filed a petition in M.C.O.P.129 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Madurai claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and six documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked and on the side of the respondent, one witness viz., R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked.
3.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and directed the appellant/State Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.7,03,000/-, as compensation.
4. Against which, the appellant/State Transport Corporation has filed this present appeal by questioning the negligence as well as quantum.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that though the deceased was working as a supplier in the hotel, the Tribunal has wrongly taken higher amount of Rs.6,000/-p.m., as monthly income of the deceased and granted higher compensation. He would further submit that the driver of the two wheeler also came in a rash and negligent manner and he has also contributed his part of negligence for causing accident. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court to the award passed by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and/claimants would submit that based on the available oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation and arrived at correct compensation under various heads. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has wrongly taken a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased does not merit acceptance, since the Honourable Apex Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC), determined the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor, even in the absence of any definite material about the income. Hence, this Court does not find any error in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-p.m., who was working as supplier in the hotel.
9. As far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidences, has held as follows: ? kDjhuh; jug;g[ tHf;fpw;F Mjuthf k.rh.1> k.rh.2 rhl;rpaq;fs; tprhhpj;J ,Ue;jhYk; nkw;fz;l rhl;rpaq;fs; rk;gtj;ij nehpy; ghh;;j;jhf mspf;fg;gltpy;iy. tpgj;ij ghh;;;j;j rhl;rpahf k.rh.3 tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. MtuJ rhl;rpaj;jpy; fle;j 20.09.2013md;W k.rh.1d; kfd; rq;fh; vd;gth; gputPd;Fkhh; vd;gth; Xl;or;brd;w ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; gpd;dhy; mkh;e;J brd;wnghJ kJiu cah;ePjpkd;w fpisapd; mUfpy; ,lJ Xukhf brd;wnghJ kJiuapypUe;J nkYhh; nehf;fp bjw;fpypUe;J tHf;fkhf te;j muR ngUe;ij mjd; Xl;Ldh; mjpf ntfkhft[k;> ftdf;Fiwthft[k; Xl;or; brd;W ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpd; kPJ nkhjpajpy; gLfhakile;j rq;fh; rk;gt ,lj;jpnyna ,we;Jtpl;ljhf[tk; rhl;rpaksp;jJs;shh;. muRg;ngUe;J Xl;Ldh; kPJ gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;s Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if k.rh.M.1 Mft[k; jhf;fy; bra;aggl;Ls;sJ. ,we;J nghd eghpd; ,wg;[g rhd;wpjH; k.rh.M.5 Mft[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. ,we;J nghd eghpd; ,wg;[g rhd;wpjH; k.rh.M.5 Mft[k;> thhpR rhd;wpjH; k.rh.M.6 Mft[k; Mtzq;fshf jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. k.rh.M.4 nkhl;lhh; thfd Ma;thsh; mwpf;ifia ghprPyid bra;J ghh;f;Fk;nghJ tpgj;jpw;F ,ae;jpuf; nfhshW fhuzk; my;y vd;gJ bjhpfpwJ. Vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; muR nghf;Ftuj;Jf; fHf ngUe;jpd; elj;Jdh; v.kh.rh.1 Mf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. tpgj;jpw;F ngUe;J Xl;Ldh; fhuzk; my;y vd;Wk; ,U rf;fu thfdj;ij Xl;o te;jth; jhd; mjpfntfkhft[k; ftdf;Fiwthft[k; Xl;o te;J ngUe;J kPJ nkhjp tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpf;bfhz;lhh; vd;W vLj;Jiuj;Js;shh;. nkw;go tpgj;Jf;Fs;shd ngUe;J Xl;Ldh; rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;fg;gltpy;iy. mf;fiw cs;s rhl;rpahd v.k.rh.1d; rhl;rpaj;ij epU:g;gpf;Fk; tifapy; bjhlh;g[ila ntW rhl;rpaq;fs; kw;Wk; rhd;whtzq;fs; mspf;fg;gltpy;iy. ,e;epiyapy; k.rh.3-d; rhl;rpaj;ij ghprPyidf;F vLj;Jf;bfhz;L k.rh.M.1> k.rh.M.3 Mfpaiyfspy; fhzg;ggLk; tptuq;fis Kjy;epiyahf ghprPyid;fF vLj;Jf;bfhz;L tpgj;jpd; nghJ ngUe;ij mjd; Xl;Leh; mjpf ntfkhft[k; ftdf;Fiwthft[k; Xl;L te;J tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpajhf gpur;rid vz; 1-f;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ.?
10. In view of the above finding, it is clear that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driver of the bus owned by the appellant Transport Corporation. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and fixed the liability on the appellant Transport Corporation and awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself and the award made in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2014, dated 07.11.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Madurai is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as apportioned by the Tribunal, with accrued interests and costs without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special District Court, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.