C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe appellant/first respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009, made in M.C.O.P. No. 92 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV, Chennai. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The claimant, who is the daughter of the deceased Baskar, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 92 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV, Chennai, claiming a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Baskar in a motor vehicle accident.
2. It was submitted that on 09.03.2003, at about 05.50 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN04 4045, on G.S.T. Road, Kancheepuram, the driver of the first respondent Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No. TN58 N0187, had driven it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents.
3. The first respondent Transport Corporation had filed their counter statement and resisted the claim petition. They had denied the averments made in the claim petition that the accident was caused by the rash driving of the bus. Actually, the rider of the motorcycle came behind the bus at a high speed and dashed against it, while the bus was stopped for alighting the passengers. As such, the accident had been committed by the deceased. It was submitted that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were also not admitted. The second respondent is the wife of the deceased and she did not file any counter statement.
4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed four issues namely:
i. Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TNSTC bus bearing registration No. TN58 N0187?
ii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?
iii. Whether the claimant and the second respondent are entitled for the compensation? and
iv. To what relief?
5. On the claimant''s side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and five documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P5 namely postmortem certificate, death certificate, salary certificate, legal heir certificate and death certificate of Kotha. On the respondents'' side, the driver and the investigator were examined as R.Ws. 1 and 2 and two documents were marked as Exs. R1 and R2 namely FIR and rough sketch.
6. P.W. 1 had adduced evidence that the deceased Baskar was her father and he was an Operator, attached to the Dunlop India Ltd., at Ambattur and he was earning a sum of Rs. 5,439.47 as monthly salary. She deposed further that on 09.03.2003, at about 05.50 p.m., when her father was proceeding on his motorcycle, on G.S.T. Road and when he was nearing Kailavaram bus stop, the first respondent transport corporation bus bearing registration No. TN58 N0187, driven by it''s driver in a negligent manner, dashed against her father.
7. P.W. 2 had adduced evidence and narrated the mode of accident, which is on similar lines to evidence of P.W. 1.
8. R.W. 1 had adduced evidence that on 09.03.2003, at about 05.50 p.m., he had stopped the bus at Kailavaram bus stop, in order to facilitate alighting and boarding of passengers and at that point of time, he heard a noise and he got down from the bus and noticed a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN04 4045, coming behind the bus, had dashed against the rear side of the bus. He deposed further that the FIR had been registered against the rider of the motorcycle.
9. R.W. 2 investigator, who had conducted enquiry, had deposed that he had submitted a report stating that two passengers came on motorcycle in a drunken mood and dashed the motorcycle behind the bus and that the FIR had been registered against the rider of the motorcycle.
10. P.W. 1 had further stated that her mother predeceased her father and that the second respondent is second wife of her father.
11. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinizing the documents marked by them, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,92,860/- as compensation to the claimant and second respondent and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation amount together with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from the date of it''s order.
12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the first respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that FIR had been registered against the rider of the motorcycle and as such the entire negligence lies on the side of the deceased. In the said accident, two vehicles were involved and therefore, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties in the instant case. But, they have not been impleaded as necessary parties. Further, the deceased and the pillion rider were in a drunken mood and had dashed the motorcycle behind the bus as per the investigation report. Further, the compensation amount awarded is also on the higher side.
14. The very competent counsel for the claimant has vehemently argued that the rider of the motorcycle had sustained grievous injuries and had become unconscious. Taking advantage of this situation, FIR had been levelled against the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased. The allegation of the drunken driving levelled against the deceased and another person and that they had dashed behind the bus had not been backed by any medical evidence and as such the statements made by the investigator is based only on an hypothetical theory and not based on facts.
15. Further, the learned counsel has argued that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,400/- per month as salary and he was attached to Dunlop India Ltd., and he was aged 45 years. On considering all these aspects, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs. 6,52,860/- after adopting relevant multiplier and granted compensation under the head of loss of income. Besides this, another sum of Rs. 40,000/- had been awarded under the relevant heads of funeral expenses, consortium, loss of love and affection and transport. Therefore, the very competent counsel expects the court to dismiss the appeal since there is no shortcoming in the impugned award ordered by the Tribunal.
16. 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 conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This court is of the further view that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 9.5% per annum is an admissible one and not an exorbitant one. Therefore, the rate of interest remains unchanged. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal had decided all the relevant issues in an appropriate manner based on the strength of documentary facts. Therefore, the award is found fit to be executed..
17. This Court has already directed the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest thereon to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 92 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV, Chennai.
18. Now, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 92 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV, Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009, made in M.C.O.P. No. 92 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV, Chennai, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
