Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1478 (MAD)

PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. v. N. SUSEELA

2003-09-18

A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, S.R.SINGHARAVELU

body2003
JUDGMENT : A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.—The Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award in M.C.O.P. No. 303 of 1995 dated 17.9.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court) at Madras. The respondents, who are the wife and mother of the deceased Natarajan filed M.C.O.P. No. 303 of 1995 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 3 of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules contending that at about 11.15 a.m. on 15.1.1995, when the deceased was proceeding as pedestrian on the left side in Valluvar Kottam High Road from north to south, the bus belonging to the Corporation bearing the registration No. TN 01-N 1841 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind the deceased and hit him and as a result the deceased died on the spot. The respondents totally claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 2. The appellant, viz., Pallavan Transport Corporation defended the claim contending that the deceased was not hit by a vehicle belonging to the Corporation and that even assuming the vehicle of the Corporation was involved in the accident, it was not driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Corporation raised a plea that the claim is on the higher side. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place only because the bus belonging to the Corporation was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind, and secondly, the Claims Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,65,000. 3. Questioning the correctness of the said award, the above appeal is filed. The claimants have also filed cross-objection with regard to the disallowed portion. 4. The first question that has to be considered is as to whether the deceased was hit only by the bus belonging to Pallavan Transport Corporation and whether it was driven by its driver at the relevant point of time in a rash and negligent manner? The second question is what is the just and reasonable compensation payable to the claimants? 5. As far as the first issue is concerned, the relevant evidence that are available are the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, namely, the eyewitness to the occurrence and the police official who investigated the case. The second question is what is the just and reasonable compensation payable to the claimants? 5. As far as the first issue is concerned, the relevant evidence that are available are the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, namely, the eyewitness to the occurrence and the police official who investigated the case. The relevant documents to be considered are Exh. P-3 the first information report, Exh. P-4 the sketch and Exh. R-1 the trip sheet and Exh. R-3 the log sheet. PW 2 is one Ravikumar. It was he who gave the complaint before Pondy Bazaar Traffic Police at 11.30 a.m. In the said complaint, he has clearly stated that at about 11.15 a.m. on 15.1.1995, he was on his way to meet his friend in Thirumalaipillai Street and when he was near Canara Bank near Valluvar Kottam, he saw the person aged about 40 years coming from the opposite direction and at that time Pallavan Transport Corporation bus came from behind and hit him and he was virtually thrown away. He has further stated in the complaint that he had noted down the number written on the bus as BG 311. After the bus hit him, it was not brought to halt by the driver. A specific mention has also been made in the complaint that the deceased died on the spot. To the same extent, he has deposed before the court as PW 2. 6. We have carefully examined the testimonies, both chief and the cross-examination. We find that this witness has, in the cross-examination, deposed that he was not known to the deceased earlier and the only suggestion put to him is that the vehicle in question has nothing to do with the accident. Two things to be noted at this juncture are that this witness is an independent witness and that he has no grievance against the driver of the bus or the Corporation. Thus, we are inclined to accept his testimony. The other testimony that is available is that of PW 3, who is the Inspector of Police. He has spoken to about PW 2 giving a complaint and that his going to the spot and investigating the matter. He has categorically stated that the investigation revealed that only the bus in question was involved in the accident. Thereafter, he directed the concerned to produce the vehicle for necessary tests and that was also produced. He has spoken to about PW 2 giving a complaint and that his going to the spot and investigating the matter. He has categorically stated that the investigation revealed that only the bus in question was involved in the accident. Thereafter, he directed the concerned to produce the vehicle for necessary tests and that was also produced. Here, we can find that this witness has not been subjected to any serious cross-examination and only two questions were put to him, a general suggestion to the effect that the bus in question was not involved in the accident and that has been stoutly denied by this witness. Here again, we are inclined to accept his testimony. 7. As against the testimony of these two witnesses, we have the evidence of RW 1 who is the conductor of the vehicle. First of all, if at all there is anybody who could speak about the occurrence, it is only the driver and not the conductor. For reasons best known to the Corporation, he has not been examined. We went through the evidence of this conductor and we find it rather difficult to accept his testimony. Though the Corporation has produced two documents through its conductor, viz., the trip sheet and log sheet, it is not known as to why the concerned officials of the Corporation at the depot have not been examined. 8. Considering the materials available on record in this case, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the bus belonging to the Corporation bearing registration No. TN 01-N 1841 running on fleet No. BG 311 was involved in the accident and the accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. 9. As far as quantum is concerned, the deceased was at the relevant time carrying on profession as a sweetmeat vendor and according to the first information report he was aged about 40 years. But, the postmortem certificate would mention his age as 44 years. Needless to mention that the age given by the doctor in the post-mortem certificate can be taken as his opinion and it cannot be taken as conclusive. The safe course would be to take an average and proceed on the basis that at the time of accident, he was aged about 42 years. The Tribunal found that he was earning a sum of Rs. The safe course would be to take an average and proceed on the basis that at the time of accident, he was aged about 42 years. The Tribunal found that he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000 at the relevant time. We do not see any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal with regard to the income. Out of the income, he would have contributed a sum of Rs. 1,330 to the dependants. The Tribunal is perfectly right in adopting multiplier of 10. If we calculate on the basis of the above relevant figures, we can safely arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,60,000. To this, we have to add at least a sum of Rs. 15,000 for loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000 for consortium apart from funeral expenses. This would take us to the figure of Rs. 1,90,000 as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000. We are of the view that this is a fit case where we can round it up to Rs. 2,00,000 and fix the compensation as Rs. 2,00,000. As far as the interest payable is concerned, we are of the view that the respondents-claimants would be entitled for interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 10. In result, we fix the compensation payable at Rs. 2,00,000 carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Both the C.M.A. and the cross-objection are allowed in part. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 1338 of 1997 is closed.