JUDGMENT
M. Chockalingam,J.
1. The judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.5) Coimbatore awarding a compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- to the claimants who are the respondents before this Court is under challenge.
2.The respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimants filed the Claim Petition with the case that when one Palanisamy- husband of the first respondent was travelling in a two wheeler on 9.6.96 at 6.45.p.m., the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Palanisamy and that Palanisamy died due to the said accident and that at the time of the accident the deceased was aged 47 years and that he was a Carpenter and that he was earning Rs.3,750/- per month and hence, they claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.20 lakhs.
3.It was opposed by the appellant transport Corporation/2nd respondent stating that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation, but due to the negligence on the part of the motorist and that the deceased was aged 55 years and hence, the Claim Petition was to be rejected.
4.The Tribunal assessed the evidence of the parties before it and found that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation the accident had taken place and further it is based on the evidence of not only the first respondent but also the police report and also the evidence and the certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has spoken about the fact that the accident was not due to the mechanical defect found in the vehicle. Hence, on sufficient evidence, the Tribunal has found that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation the accident has occurred.
5.In so far as the question of quantum of compensation is concerned, no reason has been given to reduce the compensation amount of Rs.3,42,000/- in any way. There is evidence to show that the deceased was a Carpenter and he was earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month. In order to prove, two witnesses have spoken to about the regular work of the deceased and apart from that the case of the claimants is that at the time of accident the deceased was 47 years old. Though it was also disputed, the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of the accident.
6.Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 55 years, multiplier 11 is applied, which is correct and in the circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the income and other circumstances, the compensation of a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- does not amount to in any way excessive or unreasonable.
7.There are no merits in the C.M.A. The C.M.A. fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.5577/2004 is also dismissed. No costs.