JUDGMENT
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1999 in MCOP Nos. 2597/1996 and 2949/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 23.06.1996 at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased Jagadish Tiwari was travelling as a pillion rider in TVS-50 two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-21-X-7614 which was driven by one Bawarlal Parekh in the National Highways Road, Chengalpattu. When the two-wheeler was nearing Jayavilas Hotel, a bus (Route No. 140) bearing Registration No. TN-23-N-0072, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the TVS-50 and caused the accident. Due to the accident, both the rider as well as the pillion rider were thrown into the road. The rider of TVS-50 has sustained injuries whereas the pillion rider has sustained fatal injuries and died. The respondents / claimants in CMA No. 948 of 2000 are the father and mother of the deceased Jagdish Tiwari. The respondent / claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007 is the injured. The claimants in CMA No. 948 of 2000 (MCOP No. 2597/1996) claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007 (MCOP No. 2949/1996) claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The appellant / Transport Corporation resisted the claims. On pleading, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
a) Whether the accident was due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus?
b) Whether the claimants in MCOP No. 2597/96 are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount?
c) Whether the claimant in MCOP No. 2949/96 is entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition, in respect of claimants in CMA No. 948 of 2000 and Rs.15,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition, in respect of claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007. Aggrieved by the awards, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeals.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has submitted that the bus belonging to the appellant bearing Registration No. TN-23-N-0072 did not involve in the accident and the appellant has nothing to do with the alleged accident. It is also submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is also further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both these appeals are excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence and arrived at the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation in both these appeals. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law.
5. Heard the counsel. On behalf of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On behalf of the Transport Corporation, one Venkatesan was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Jagdish Tiwari. P.W.2 is the respondent / claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007. Ex.P1 is the copy of Legal Heirship Certificate. Ex.P2 is the copy of Death Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of Death Report from Corporation of Madras. Ex.P4 is the Copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P5 is the copy of Driving Licence. Ex.P6 is the copy of Income-tax Permanent Account Number. Ex.P7 is the copy of Income-tax 1994-95 Balance Sheet. Ex.P8 is the copy of Income-tax 1995-96 Balance Sheet. Ex.P9 is the Hospital O.P. Card. Ex.P10 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.P11 is the Medical Receipts. Ex.P12 is the copy of Driving Licence of Bawarlal Parekh. Ex.P13 is the copy of R.C. Book. Ex.R1 is the certified copy of judgment, Chengalpattu Court in C.C. No. 157/97 dated 25.11.97. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition, in respect of CMA No. 948 of 2000 and Rs.15,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition, in respect of CMA No. 1494 of 2007. The details of the compensation are as under:
CMA No. 948 of 2000 (MCOP No. 2597 of 1996): Rupees
Loss of income 3,12,000/-
Loss of love and affection 8,000/-
-----------
Total... 3,20,000/-
===========
CMA No. 1494 of 2007 (MCOP No. 2949 of 1996): Rupees
Medical and hospital expenses 10,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
-----------
Total... 15,000/-
===========
P.W.2-claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007 has given evidence that he drove the TVS-50 and Jagdish Tiwari was travelling as a pillion rider in the said TVS-50 at the time of accident. He deposed that when he was proceeding from Chengalpattu to Maduranthagam, he wanted to fill up petrol in his TVS-50 in a bunk situated in between Chengalpattu and Maduranthagam and in order to enter into the petrol bunk, he was riding the TVS-50 slowly and keeping left side of the road and it is only the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler and as a result of which the rider fell on the road abutting platform and the pillion rider fell on the right side of the road and the rear wheel of the bus ran over the right leg of Jagadish Tiwari. P.W.2 took the injured in an autorickshaw engaged by him and others into Government Hospital, Chengalpattu where the injured Jagadish Tiwari was declared dead. P.W.2 has also lodged the F.I.R., marked as Ex.P10. The F.I.R. clearly shows that P.W.2 has narrated the manner in which the accident took place on 23.06.1996 at about 8.00 p.m. Also it is seen that a case in Crime No. 470/96 has been registered for offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC. Ex.R1 is the certified copy of judgment, Chengalpattu Court in C.C. No. 157/97 dated 25.11.97, which shows that the bus bearing Registration No. TN-23-N-0072 caused the said accident and the driver of the bus was charge sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengalpattu and the case was taken on file in C.C. No. 157/97 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. After considering all these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence the findings given by the Tribunal with regard to negligence are based on valid materials and evidence.
6. The claimants in CMA No. 948 of 2000 are the father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. P.W.1, the father of the deceased, has given evidence that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of accident and he was running the business in the name and style of M/s.Jagadish Steel and was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was employed as part time Accountant and the family of the deceased was solely depending upon the income of the deceased. Ex.P5 is the Driving Licence, which indicates that the deceased Jagadish Tiwari was having a valid driving licence to drive two-wheeler vehicle. The documents Ex.P7-copy of Income-tax 1994-95 Balance Sheet, Ex.P8-copy of Income-tax 1995-96 Balance Sheet and Ex.P6-Permanent Account Number by Income-tax Department, clearly shows that the deceased was running the business of his own and was earning income. After taking into consideration of the above evidences, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal deduced 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly the annual income was calculated at Rs.24,000/-. The deceased was a bachelor. After taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, i.e., 48 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13 and determined the loss of income at Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 13). The Tribunal has correctly determined the annual income as Rs.24,000/- and adopted the correct multiplier, which are based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,12,000/- towards loss of income is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the age of the parents and also that the deceased was the only son aged 20 years, the award of the Tribunal in respect of loss of love and affection is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 12% is confirmed as the same was the prevailing rate at that time. Under the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal with regard to CMA No. 948 of 2000 is confirmed.
7. P.W.2, who is the claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007, has stated that he is running a bunk stall at Chengalpattu selling betel nut, beedi, cigarette etc. and he is earning Rs.2,000/- per month. P.W.2 was admitted as an in-patient on 23.06.1996 and discharged on 26.06.1996. There is no documentary evidence produced to show that he was suffering from permanent partial disability after the accident. In view of the same, the Tribunal was of the view that P.W.2 has sustained only simple injuries. Also there is documentary evidence to show that P.W.2 spent a sum of Rs.4,768.45 towards medical expenses. After considering the same, the Tribunal held that P.W.2, the claimant in CMA No. 1494 of 2007 is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and hospital expenses. In view of the fact that the petitioner was undergoing treatment as an in-patient for a period of four days, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, totalling to a compensation of Rs.15,000/-. The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Hence the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under these heads are confirmed. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 12% is confirmed as the same was the prevailing rate at that time. Under the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal with regard to CMA No. 1494 of 2007 is confirmed.
8. The findings of the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition in CMA No. 948 of 2000 and Rs.15,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of petition in CMA No. 1494 of 2007 are confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
10. It is stated that the appellant / Transport Corporation has already deposited the entire amounts awarded by the Tribunal in respect of both these appeals. Hence the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective award amount from the deposits.