THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2465 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.13485 of 2017 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Managing Director, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore ... Appellant ..vs..
1. Tmt. K.Suguna
2. K.Sugipriya
3. K.Sugichithra
4. Thiru. R.Thangan (driver set exparte) ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 27.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : M/s. R.T.Sundari For Respondents : Mr. S.P.Yuaraj, for R-1 to R-3 Exparte, R-4 ---
J U D G M E N T
The Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal, challenging the finding on quantum as well as negligence on the ground that there should be finding on contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and no such finding has been rendered.
2. The deceased, aged 56, by name, A.K.Krishnan, who was a conductor of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, earning a sum of Rs.16,904/- met with an accident on 20.12.2010. He was initially admitted at Annur Government Hospital, where he was given first aid treatment and later, shifted to Ramakrishna Hospital, where he was in Intensive Care Unit and he succumbed to the injuries sustained and died on 06.01.2011 (sixteen days after the accident).
2.1. The Legal Representatives of the deceased have filed the claim petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.17,45,000/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition, i.e., 01.03.2013, till the date of deposit. Challenging the finding on negligence and quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal.
3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation is that the registration of the First Information Report against the driver of the Corporation itself is not a conclusive proof for negligence and that the Tribunal should have accepted the evidence of the driver, who was the first respondent therein and who remained exparte, but has given evidence on behalf of the Transport Corporation, before the Tribunal. A specific contention raised is that it is not the driver, who was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and the negligence was on the part of the deceased who admitted that the accident had occurred only when the deceased tried to cross the road and therefore, there is no liability on the part of the bus driver and hence, the appellant should be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. Alternatively, it is argued that atleast for the contributory negligence, some portion of the compensation amount has to be reduced from the total amount of compensation.
4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to find out the evidence regarding negligence. The Tribunal has framed a specific issue as to whether the rash and negligent driving was on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation. The Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, Suguna, who has spoken about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent before the Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / second respondent before the Tribunal has contended that the driver, even though added as a party, has remained exparte only because, he has no defence to make.
5.1. This contention cannot be accepted, because even though the driver had remained exparte, he has appeared as a witness on behalf of the Corporation / appellant.
6. The Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, Mahendran, who is the eye-witness for the occurrence and the attendant circumstance that the case has been registered against the driver of the Corporation bus and that final report has been filed only as against the driver of the bus. The registration of the First Information Report cannot be the sole basis on the basis of which negligence can be attributed. It is a matter that requires further scrutiny and enquiry. The Tribunal has considered the conduct of the driver in not taking any steps in challenging the First Information Report. There is also a finding that there is no acceptable reason as to why the evidence of eye-witness, namely, P.W.3, cannot be accepted. Finding that the evidence of the witness is acceptable and convincing, the Tribunal has given a finding. In such circumstances, the contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has no basis and therefore, the appeal on the finding of negligence has to be rejected.
7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking the monthly income at Rs.16,000/-, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and adopting the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency has been calculated.
8. The medical expenses has been awarded (as per Ex.P-7) at Rs.2,33,000/-. This amount is claimed to be excessive by the learned counsel for the appellant. As the medical expenses sanctioned are in accordance with the claim made in tune with the bills, unless it is shown that Ex.P-7 is unreliable, the contention that medical expenses granted is excessive cannot be accepted. The fact remains that from the date of accident till his death, the deceased had been kept in the Intensive Care Unit at Ramakrishna Hospital.
8.1. In such circumstances, the contention that the medical expenses is high cannot be accepted.
9. In view of the above, the contention that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is excessive cannot be accepted. The award of compensation passed by the Claims Tribunal is reasonable, just, fair and does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the Appeal has no merits and thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, even though the delay has been condoned. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.
10. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the compensation amount to the Savings Bank accounts of the claimants through RTGS, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Claims Tribunal.
04.09.2017 Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No srk To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai 104
Dr. S.VIMALA, J.,
srk C.M.A.No.2465 of 2017 & CMP No.13485 of 2017 04.09.2017