Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs Regha on 2 November, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/11/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A(MD) No.491 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2008 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Limited, Kottam (III), Nesamani Nagar, Rani Thottam, represented by its Managing Director, Nagercoil. .. Appellant vs 1.Regha 2.Minor. Abin Raja (Minor 2nd Respondent through his mother and next friend 1st respondent Regha) 3.Chinna Thangam 4.Grasy .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.958 of 2003, dated 15.03.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. !For Appellant ... M/s.Royce Emmanuel ^For Respondents ... Mr.T.Selvakumaran (for R3 & R4) :JUDGMENT
The appellant / 1st respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.491 of 2008, against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.958 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.
2.The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioners, who are the wife and minor son of the (deceased) Thambikebin have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.958 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Thambikebin in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 02.05.2003, at about 7.00 p.m., when the (deceased) Thambikebin was riding his Yamaha Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-6781 from Kottaram towards Kanyakumari-Kottaram Main road and near Bishayan Compound, the 1st respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0575, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. As a result, the (deceased) Thambikebin and the pillion rider namely Amalraj sustained severe injuries. The deceased (Thambikebin) succumbed to his injuries while being taken to Jayasekaran Hospital, Nagercoil. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3. The 1st respondent is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Nagercoil. The 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are the parents of the deceased, have been added as respondents as they did not want to contest the case.
3.The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioners should prove the age, income, occupation of deceased and manner of accident through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the driver of the bus drove it in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the (deceased) motorcyclist, who had tried to overtake a vehicle going ahead of him and come on to the path of the bus. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that the (deceased) Thambikebin had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
4.The 2nd and 3rd respondents in their counter have submitted that they are the parents of the deceased Thambikebin and that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the (deceased). It was submitted that as the 2nd and 3rd respondents are also the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, they are also entitled to get compensation.
5.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's bus? (2) Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? and (3) Are the petitioners including 2nd and 3rd respondents entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
6.On the petitioners' side, two witnesses were examined and 3 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3 namely: Ex.P1-Copy of postmortem report; Ex.P2-
Copy of F.I.R.; and Ex.P3-Copy of charge sheet. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined and no document was marked.
7.PW2, Amalraj, the pillion rider of the motorcycle and eyewitness of the accident had adduced evidence that on 02.05.2003, when he was travelling as a pillion rider in the Yamaha motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-5872 driven by deceased Thambikebin from Kottaram towards Kanyakumari and at about 6.30 p.m., when the motorcycle was proceeding on the Kanyakumari-Nagercoil Main road, the 1st respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0575, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the motorcycle.
8.RW1, Anthonymuthu, the driver of the 1st respondent's bus had adduced evidence that at about 7.20 p.m., on the date of accident, when he was driving the bus from Kanyakumari towards Kaliyakkavilai and at about 7.35 p.m., when he was driving it carefully and at a moderate speed near Kottaram Machine Compound, he had seen a motorcyclist coming in the opposite direction and driving at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing this, he had stopped the bus, but as the motorcyclist had applied sudden brake, he fell down from the motorcycle and was dragged along with the motorcycle, which ultimately came to rest in front of the bus. He deposed that the motorcycle had not dashed against the bus.
9.The Tribunal observed that RW1 had admitted that he had not given any written complaint to the police regarding the accident. Though RW1 had stated that he had given a letter to the police authorities stating that he was not responsible for the accident and that a copy of it was handed over to the Transport Corporation, he had not produced the copy of the alleged letter before the Tribunal.
10.Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P2 and evidence of PW2 and on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's bus and hence held the 1st respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3.
11.PW1 had adduced evidence that she is the wife of the deceased and that her husband was aged 31 years at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. She deposed that she was 5 months pregnant, at the time of accident and that the 2nd petitioner, who is her minor son has not seen the face of his father. She further deposed that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are her father-in-law and mother-in-law.
12.On scrutiny of Ex.P11, it is seen that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on holding the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and on adopting a multiplier of 17, awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- (2,500X2/3X12X17) as compensation under the head of loss of income; Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the 1st petitioner under the head of loss of consortium; Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the 2nd petitioner under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- was awarded to each of the respondents 2 and 3, under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.2,000/- was awarded for transport expenses; Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses; and Rs.10,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,27,000/- as compensation and directed the 1st respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of deposit of compensation, with costs, within a period of two months from the date of its order.
13.Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Nagercoil, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant driver. It was contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, while he attempted to overtake the vehicle going ahead of the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations of the road. It was submitted that the award passed under the head of loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection were excessive and hence it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
14.The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the 1st claimant is the young widow and the 2nd claimant is an infant baby and that the 3rd and 4th claimants are parents of the deceased and all of them are depending upon the income of the deceased. The deceased was a driver and at the time of accident, he was aged about 31 years. The F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus and even though the case has been registered against the appellant herein beyond doubt, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads.
15.On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. The F.I.R. and charge sheet have been levelled against the driver of the bus as is evident from scrutiny of exhibits. Besides, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side, considering the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the dependancy of claimants on the deceased.
16.As per records, it is seen that the entire compensation has been deposited, with interest by the appellant herein. Now, the major claimant is permitted to withdraw her apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.958 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. This Court directs the learned Judge, to deposit the minor claimant's apportioned share amount in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit in the Cumulative Deposit Scheme till such time the minor attains the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificate to the mother of the minor.
17.In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.958 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, dated 15.03.2007, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vs To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.