The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited has questioned the impugned award both on the ground of negligence as well as the quantum.
2.The bus belonging to the appellant corporation and the Omni bus belonging to the fifth respondent and insured with the sixth respondent herein were involved in a head on collision on 13.12.2008 at about 05.00 a.m. The passenger travelling in the appellant corporation bus died. His legal representatives filed MCOP.No.80 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur seeking compensation before the Tribunal. There was no evidence let in with regard to the occurrence. PW.1 was one of the claimants. PW.2 was the employer of the deceased. Thus, on the side of the claimant there was no evidence to establish that the bus driver was at fault. Interestingly, the appellant transport corporation also did not examine its driver by any other witness.
3.The omni bus driverwas the defacto complainant in the FIR. The driver of the omni bus who lodged the FIR was not examined. The rough sketch was not marked. Thus, there was complete absence of any material to fasten liability on one driver alone. Therefore, in such cases involving head on collision between two vehicles, negligence has to be apportioned equally between both the drivers.
4.In this case also, the same approach ought to have been adopted. I therefore fix 50% negligence on the bus driver and the remaining 50% negligence on the Omni bus driver. Since the said Omni bus was insured with the sixth respondent herein, the sixth respondent insurance company will have to bear 50% of the liability to satisfy the award in question. Coming to the quantum, it is seen that the monthly income of the deceased was taken as only Rs.6,000/-. The correct approach was made. The correct multiplier was adopted. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also correct. As regards the quantum of compensation, I do not want to interfere.
5.The award dated 19.12.2012 made in MCOP.No.80 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur is modified by fixing 50% of the liability on the appellant corporation and the remaining 50% of liability on the sixth respondent insurance company.
6.The appellant transport corporation and the sixth respondent insurance company are directed to deposit the compensation amount as apportioned above, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date petition till the date of realization and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant corporation is permitted to withdraw the 50% compensation amount from the insurance company, if the said amount had been fully deposited. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal by filing proper application, less the amount already withdrawn by them, if any.
6.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur
2.The Record Keeper, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.