C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe appeal is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.
2. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/State Transport Corporation against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 2551 of 2008, dated 15.09.2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, on awarding a compensation a sum of Rs. 4,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 16.03.2008, at about 11.15 hours, when the deceased Mani @ Subramni was getting into the State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN. 45-N-2434 at Anbil Anna Nagar bus stop, the driver of the bus moved it in a rash and negligent manner, even before getting the signal from the conductor. Due to this, the deceased lost his balance and fell down and the bus ran over him. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and was given first aid at Government Hospital, Lalgudi. For better treatment, he was admitted in Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, but in spite of best treatment, he died in the hospital. Hence, the Petitioners, who are the daughter and aged mother of the deceased have filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Respondent.
4. The Respondent in his counter has resisted the claim denying the manner of accident. It was stated that on the date of accident, at about 11.15 hours, when the Respondent''s bus was nearing Anbil Anna Nagar bus stop, the Respondent''s bus driver applied brake and stopped the bus at the bus stop. After loading and unloading the passengers, the driver of the bus moved the bus in a slow speed. The deceased tried to board the moving bus, lost his balance and fell down. Thus the accident happened due to fault of the deceased. The age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was also stated that the claim was excessive.
5. After hearing the averments of both parties, the Tribunal framed three issues for consideration, namely:
(i)Whether the first Petitioner''s father Mani @ Subramani sustained fatal injuries in the road traffic accident on 16.03.2008 involving the TNSTC Bus bearing Registration No.TN.45/N.2434 owned by the Respondent and driven rashly and negligently by its driver?
(ii)Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount?
(iii)To what relief, are the parties entitled?
6. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses had been examined, viz., PW1 the daughter of the deceased/first claimant, PW2- eye witness and six documents were marked viz., Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report, Ex.P3-Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P4-Death Certificate, Ex.P5-Legal-heir certificate and Ex.P6-telegram.
On the side of the Respondent R.W. 1 was examined and three documents were marked viz., Ex.R1-copy of the final report, Ex.R2-copy of the accident register and Ex.R3-copy of the letter.
7. The first Petitioner had adduced evidence regarding the manner of accident, which was in consonance with the version of accident as stated in the claim. Velmurugan, who was a passenger in the bus at the time of accident and who was an eyewitness, was examined as PW2. He narrated the facts about the accident which was in consonance with that given by PW1. His testimony had not been discredited. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1. He had stated in his evidence that he moved the bus only after getting proper signal from conductor and stated that the deceased who was in a drunken mood tried to get into the moving bus, lost his balance and fell down. In support of his claim, he marked documents Exs.R1 to R3. But in the F.I.R., there was no such allegation that the deceased was in a drunken mood. The Respondent had also not examined the complainant. Hence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the negligence and rash driving of the driver of the bus.
8. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,11,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable by the Respondent within one month from the date of its order failing which a penal interest at 9% per annum would be charged on the sum awarded for such delayed period of deposit. The breakup of compensation under various heads is as follows:
Rs. 3,96,000/- towards loss of dependency ;
(Rs. 4500 x 12 x 2/3 x 11)
Rs. 2,500/- towards transport / ambulance charges;
Rs. 2,500/- for funeral expenses;
Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection.
Further, the award granted was apportioned equally amongst the Petitioners.
9. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the Tribunal, the Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the present appeal to set-aside the award.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal had erroneously fixed the negligence on the Appellant''s driver, who drove the bus carefully and cautiously. It was pointed out that the driver drove the bus after getting signal from the conductor and that the deceased was in a drunken state. It was also argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the police closed the F.I.R. as mistake of fact. It was also stated that the Tribunal had erroneously fixed the income of deceased as Rs. 4,500/- without any proof and adopted an erroneous multiplier of 11; that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration that the married daughter of deceased does not have any loss of dependency; that the Tribunal ought to have taken multiplier with respect to the age of the second claimant i.e., mother of deceased.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased''s age was 46 years and he was engaged as a coolie and the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per year after deducting personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 11 and awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- under the head of ''loss of income''. Besides, the award granted under other heads, namely, funeral expenses, transport and loss of love and affection are also reasonable. Therefore, this Court confirms the said award as it is found to be fair and justifiable in the instant case. Hence, this Court directs the Appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, as per Tribunal''s finding, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount as fixed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 2551 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, after filing a Memo along with this order.
12. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2551 of 2008, dated 15.09.2009 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
