(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.T. SELVAM, J.,) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the order of the learned Additional District and Special Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for E.C. Act Cases, Salem, dated 26.06.2012 in M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 2008.
2. Respondents 1, 2 and 3/claimants are mother, sister and father of the deceased. The fourth respondent is the owner of the lorry. On 09.02.2008, at about 04:30 a.m, while the deceased was traveling in the bus bearing Registration No.T.N.23.N.1852 belonging to the appellant transport corporation from Chennai to Salem, the same hit the lorry bearing Registration No.T.N.25.X.7490 which was stationary on the left side of the road, owing to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died, despite treatment.
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents 1, 2 and 3/claimants, one witness was examined and 37 exhibits were marked. On the side of appellant Transport Corporation, two witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked. On appreciation of materials before it, Tribunal found that the accident had occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Considering the age of the deceased and Ex.P.14, Income Particulars, Tribunal has fixed his annual income at Rs.2,11,608/- added 50% towards future prospectus and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation as follows:
4. The said sum of Rs.38,79,492/- was directed to be paid with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Against such finding, the appellant transport corporation has filed the present appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the accident took place since the lorry, which was in front of the bus belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation suddenly came to a halt. In such circumstance, the driver of the bus could not avoid the accident. Learned counsel submits that R.W.2/driver of the lorry had admitted to not having placed any parking signal behind the lorry.
7. We find that a just and reasoned approach has been adopted in determining compensation. Given the clear position informed in Ex.P.1, First Information Report (FIR), that the lorry was stationary on the road, when the bus dashed against the same, we would hold that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the bus. However, we would also take into consideration the admitted position of the lorry having been stationary and the evidence of R.W.2 that no parking signal has been placed there behind. Hence, we consider it appropriate to hold that the driver of the lorry contributed to the accident. Accordingly, while upholding the liability and the sum arrived in compensation, we would apportion the same between the appellant Transport Corporation and the fifth respondent Insurance Company in the ratio of 90:10.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
9. It is represented that the appellant transport corporation has deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. In keeping with the present order, fifth respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the sum payable by them to the appellant transport corporation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(C.T.S, J.,) (M.V.M, J.,) 13.11.2017 mrr Index : Yes/No Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order To 1. The Additional District & Special Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. C.T. SELVAM, J., & M. V. MURALIDARAN, J., mrr C.M.A.No.3228 of 2013 13.11.2017