BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13/03/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.984 of 1998 Ms.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai - Division I rep. By its Managing Director, Bye pass road, Madurai -625 016. ...Appellant (Cause Title accepted vide order dated 16.07.1998 in C.M.P.No.8047 of 1998) Vs 1.Periathai 2.Minor Sridevi 3.Minor Priyadevi (Minors 2 and 3 rep. By their mother and natural guardian the 1st respondent herein) 4.Velu 5.Ananthammal ...Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1997 and made in M.C.O.P.No.369 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Additional Subordinate Judge, Kamaraj District at Srivilliputtur. !For Appellant ... Mr.D.Sivaraman for M/s.Rajinish Pathiyil ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Thilagar for Mr.A.Sivaji :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.369
of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Additional
Subordinate Judge, Kamaraj District at Srivilliputtur. The State Transport
Corporation is the appellant herein.
The short facts of the case for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as
follows:
2. On 15.08.1994, one Poomani was travelling in a bus bearing Registration
No.TN-59-N-0890 belonging to the respondent, from Senkottai to Theni. When the
bus was nearing Motor Vehicles’ Inspector Office on the Srivilliputtur –
Rajapalayam main Road, another bus belonging to the respondent’s Corporation,
bearing Registration No.TN-59-0830, was driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed against the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-59-N-0890 in which the said Poomani was travelling, resulting
the death of the said Poomani and two others. Many passengers had sustained
grievous injuries in the accident. Hence, the legal representatives of the
deceased had preferred claim petition claiming Rs.5,00,000/- towards
compensation.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated that the accident had not
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the buses
belonging to the respondent. But, the accident had occurred only due to the
sudden crossing of the milk vendor in a cycle from east to west at the place of
occurrence. Just to avoid the cyclist, both the drivers have swerved their
respective buses to their left which resulted in the accident.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1
to P.6 were marked on the side of the claimants and R.W.1 was examined and no
documentary evidence was let in on the side of the respondent.
5. After going through the available evidence, the learned Tribunal has
come to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-0830
and awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,360/- towards compensation with 12% interest from
the date of petition till the date of realisation.
6. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the respondent had preferred
this appeal.
7. Now, the point for determination in this appeal, is whether the award
of compensation passed in M.C.O.P.No.369 of 1996 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal – Additional Subordinate Judge, Kamaraj District at
Srivilliputtur, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the
Memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.984 of 1998?
The Point:
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would fairly concede that the
method adopted by the learned Tribunal for assessing the loss of income was on
the basis of the method which was prevailing during the year 1996. The learned
Counsel would represent that the monthly income of the deceased was taken by the
learned Tribunal as Rs.1,500/- and after deducting Rs.540/- towards his personal
expenses, the learned Tribunal had assessed the net income of the deceased as
Rs.960/- and assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.11,520/- after
adopting 18 as the multiplier, since, the age of the deceased was 28, the
learned Tribunal has assessed the total loss of income of the deceased as
Rs.2,07,360/-.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the method of
assessing the loss of income by the learned Tribunal is correct and that the
claimants have not preferred any appeal or cross-appeal against the award passed
in M.C.O.P.No.369 of 1996.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant would also admit that the
appellant has no other point to be canvassed in this appeal, because both the
vehicles involved in the accident are belonging to the respondent / State
Transport Corporation.
11. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with
the findings of the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.369 of 1996.
12. Hence, I hold on the point that the award of compensation passed in
M.C.O.P.No.369 of 1996 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Additional
Subordinate Judge, Kamaraj District at Srivilliputtur, need not be set aside for
the reasons stated in the Memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.369 of 1996. The
point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed in
M.C.O.P.No.369 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –
Additional Subordinate Judge, Kamaraj District at Srivilliputtur. No costs.
rsb
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –
Additional Subordinate Judge,
Kamaraj District at
Srivilliputtur.