Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 594 (MAD)

Managing Director, Tirunelveli v. Sulthanbeevi

2013-01-28

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment 1. The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1007 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court-I, Tirunelveli. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the wife and children of the deceased Abdul Rahman, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1007 of 2010, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent for the death of the said Abdul Rahman in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 21.07.2010, at about 11 a.m., when the deceased Abdul Rahman was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-AD-4477 from the Veeravanallur to Tirunelveli Sankanthiradu Vilakku, carefully and cautiously on the left of the road, the respondent bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0626, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the impact, the (deceased) Abdul Rahman was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, he was admitted at Cheran Mahadevi Government Hospital and subsequently admitted at Palayamkottai Government Hospital and received treatment. But, in spite of treatment, the (deceased) Abdul Rahman succumbed to his injuries on 23.07.2010. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the respondent. 3. The respondent in his counter has submitted that the respondent's bus driver had driven the bus carefully and cautiously and that the accident was caused only by the negligence of the deceased Abdul Rahman, who had suddenly and negligently crossed the road, near the Cheran Mahadevi Vilakku Road, without giving any indication. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that the (deceased) Abdul Rahman had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that they are the legal heirs of the (deceased) Abdul Rahman. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?" 5. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?" 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R. dated 21.07.2010, Ex.P2-copy of charge sheet dated 02.08.2010, Ex.P3-copy of post mortem report dated 23.07.2010, Ex.P4-legal heir certificate dated 27.11.2010 and Ex.P5-driving licence of the deceased Abdul Rahman. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and no documents were marked. 6. P.W.2., Mr. Bheer Mohammed had adduced evidence that on the date of occurrence of accident he had been riding his 'star city' motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-76-P-6140 and that his uncle, the (deceased) Abdul Rahman, who was riding his motorcycle 'TVS XL' bearing Registration No.TN-72-AD-4477 was proceeding ahead of him towards Tirunelveli. He deposed that when he was nearing Sankanthiradu Villaku, the State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0626, coming in the opposite direction, on the same road, was driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without sounding horns and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by his uncle, i.e., the (deceased) Abdul Rahman. Even on cross-examination, he had stuck to his version of accident and had not stated that the respondent's bus had remained stationery at the time of accident. 7. R.W.1, the driver of the respondent's bus had adduced evidence that on the date of occurrence of accident, at about 11 a.m., he had stopped the bus at the Sankanthiradu Villaku bus stand in order to facilitate passengers to alight. He deposed that the road was situated at the centre of four adjoining roads and that the (deceased) motorcyclist who had come out on his motorcycle through one of the roads, had failed to notice the stationery bus and dashed his motorcycle against the right edge of the bus and caused the accident. He deposed that the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the (deceased) motorcyclist. He deposed that the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the (deceased) motorcyclist. On cross-examination, he had admitted that a criminal case had been filed against him by the police and that the charge sheet had been filed against him and that the case is pending for trial at the Cheram Mahadevi Court. The Tribunal opined that if the bus had been stationery as alleged by R.W.1 in his evidence and the motorcyclist had dashed his vehicle against it, the police officers who had, conducted an enquiry would not have filed the charge sheet as against the bus driver. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary exhibits marked as Ex.P1 and P2 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's bus driver. 8. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased Abdul Rahman had adduced evidence that her husband was aged 57 years and working as a tea master and earning Rs.7,000/-per month. The Tribunal, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the deceased held that the notional income of the deceased could only be taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, the driving licence, the Tribunal observed that the age of the deceased was 57 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 8, awarded a sum of Rs.3,52,000/-as compensation to the petitioners under the head of 'loss of income' (Rs.5,500 x 12 x 2/3 x 3); Rs.10,000/- was awarded to the first petitioner for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/-each was awarded to the second, third, fourth and fifth petitioners under the head of 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.10,000/-was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,12,000/-as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within one month from the date of its order. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli has filed the present appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli has filed the present appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant had contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that mere registration of a criminal case against the driver of the appellant is not conclusive evidence to show that the driver of the bus had been negligent. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income and had awarded an excessive sum under the head of 'loss of income' and that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the annual notional income as per Schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month as tea master. The claimants are five in numbers and as such, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 of the deceased income for his personal expenses. This was not considered by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal had not considered the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal had not awarded compensation under the head of 'transport' 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. As per the Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount. Further, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. 13. Now, it is open to all the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest as per ratio fixed by the Tribunal lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1007 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court-I, Tirunelveli, after filing a Memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any, as per this Court's order. 14. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. 14. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1007 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court-I, Tirunelveli, dated 21.04.2011, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.