Honourable Mr. P. Devadass, J.@mdashThe appellants are dependants of a deceased killed in a road accident. Ramesh, son of the appellants, on
09.10.2006, at about 5.45 p.m., on the Trichy-Dindigul Main Road, near Murugan Kovil Bus Stop, near Vadamadurai, died in a road accident.
2. The dispute is whether Ramesh died due to his negligence or the negligence of the bus driver of respondent Corporation.
3. The Tribunal considering the inconsistent version of P.W. 2 in his evidence and in his F.I.R. disbelieved the plea of negligence put forward by
the claimants and dismissed their claim petition.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal not considered the evidence in proper perspective. Further, there is
prevarication in the counter of the respondent and in the evidence of R.W. 1, the bus driver.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal analysed the F.I.R. and the evidence of P.W. 2 and
the pleadings of the parties and correctly decided the negligence issue as against the claimants.
6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
7. It is well settled that in deciding claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act the approach of the Tribunal should be different from that of a
Criminal Court and a regular Civil Court. The Motor Accident Claim cases should not be tried like a murder case in a Sessions Court or a
complicated suit before a Civil Court. A claim case should not be tried like a murder case.
8. The Tribunal is duty bound to find out negligence lies upon whom, who is responsible for the accident. It need not call for strict proof as in a
criminal case. It has to be decided on preponderance of probabilities. It has to be tried in a summary way. But the Tribunal cannot dispense with
the primary onus of the claimants to prove their plea of negligence.
9. In this case, there is no doubt that Ramesh died in a road accident. There is no doubt that Transport Corporation''s Bus is involved. The
accident had taken place on 09.10.2006 on the Trichy-Dindigul road near Murugan Kovil Bus Stop, near Vada Madurai. The plea of the
claimants is that their son died only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. But, the Corporation in its counter pleaded that at about
that time from a side road, Ramesh emerged in his bike and he dashed against the Corporation Bus and thus the accident and his death.
10. P.W. 2 Shanmuganathan lodged Ex. P.1 F.I.R. A case has been registered against R.W. 1 Sundara Velu, the bus driver. After investigation, in
their Final Report (see Ex. P.4 charge sheet), police concluded that R.W. 1 is responsible for this accident.
11. Before the Tribunal, P.W. 2 has been examined as an eye-witness to the accident. Substantially he has deposed as what he has stated in the
F.I.R. He had stated that the Corporation bus came driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Ramesh. In his cross-examination,
P.W. 2 has stated that at the time of accident Ramesh was standing with his bike along the road. In his F.I.R. he has stated that at about that time
Ramesh was driving the bike and the bus has dashed against him. The accident was on 09.10.2006. Then, the F.I.R. was lodged. Thereafter only
on 17.01.2009 he was examined in the Tribunal. It is common sense that by passage of such time few aspects may fade away from one''s memory.
But P.W. 2 has spoken substantially about the manner of road accident. Further, P.W. 2 is a villager. The Tribunal must alive to the reality of the
situation. In ordinary slang, in the regional language, while explaining such an incident one may say ""te;J bfhz;oUe;jhd;"", ""epd;W bfhz;oUe;Bjd;.
The Tribunal heavily relied on the said inconsistency of P.W. 2 in his Ex. P.1 F.I.R. and evidence. Further, if really the version of R.W. 1 is true
nothing prevented him from making a complaint to Police that Ramesh came voluntarily and dashed against the bus and died. But no such
complaint has been made by him. Further, he did not make a report to that effect to his Corporation also. At the time of his evidence, R.W. 1 the
bus driver put the blame on the deceased, so that the deceased will not react. Thus, considering the entire pleadings of the parties and the evidence
we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective. Thus, we hold that the accident was solely
due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.
12. At the time of accident, the deceased was 21 years old. He died a bachelor. His parents are appellants Muthu and Meena @ Meenakshi. At
the time of his death, Muthu and Meenakshi are 46 and 42 years old respectively. Their average age is 44. Applicable multiplier is ''14''.
13. It is stated that the deceased was studying III year in a Polytechnic. But, no document has been produced. Ramesh was not a minor. An adult.
He was hale and healthy. His parents lost him at an young age. He was a villager. In the villages, even if he goes to ordinary coolie work, he would
get a minimum of Rs. 3,000/- per month.
14. The problem of deduction towards pleasure and other expenses from the income of the deceased arises only in fatal cases. The rate of
deduction depends upon marital status of the deceased. If he is a bachelor 50% is to be deducted. If he is married, 1/3rd or 1/4th or 1/5th
depending upon the size of the family is to be deducted. In Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , it was
held that even in the case of a deceased, who was a bachelor this rate of deduction depends on the number of persons depended on him.
15. Under peculiar circumstances of the case even in a case where the deceased was a bachelor instead of 50%, 1/3rd can be deducted. In the
present case, except the deceased, there is no other male member in the family. The other one is an unmarried sister. The parents and his sister had
much hope on the income of the deceased. The parents also depended on the deceased for the marriage of their daughter. Further, the deceased
had a duty to arrange his sister''s marriage. But, by his untimely death, this has been shattered. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, instead of
50%, 1/3rd deduction shall be made. So, from Rs. 3,000/- only Rs. 1,000/- shall be deducted and the balance Rs. 2,000/- shall be taken.
16. On the above lines, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 14). Towards loss of love and affection the
appellants are awarded Rs. 15,000/- each. Towards cremation expenses Rs. 6,000/- is awarded. For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. In
the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The appellants are awarded a total compensation Rs. 3,87,000/- with 7.5%
interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit and costs. The appellants shall share the amount equally. Respondent shall
deposit the entire amount, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to
withdraw their entire share. No costs.
