BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28/04/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A. (MD)No.1013 of 1997 The Managing Director Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Trichy ... Appellant Vs 1. Suseela 2. Minor Aravind 3. Minor Akilan 2 and 3 minors represented by their mother and next friend Suseela 4. Rasammal ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 1993 dated 9.1.1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal( Sub Court), Karur. !For Appellant ... Mr.K.Raghunathan for Raghu Associates ^For respondents ... M/s K.Sukumaran P.Suseela Rani. l :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 58
of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court) Karur.
The State Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.
2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are
as follows:
On 23.5.1992 at about 2.00 p.m., the first claimant’s husband Subramanian was
riding on his scooter from east to west on the Karur-Dindigul Old Bye Pass Road.
The bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0203 belonging to the respondent was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter,
on which the said Subramanian was riding, causing grievous injuries all over
his body. Immediately, the injured was taken to K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore where
he died on 28.5.1992 without responding to the treatment. At the time of the
accident, the deceased was aged 35 and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
mensum. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased have filed the claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation.
3. The respondent in his counter has contended that the accident had not
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry
bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-0203. The accident had occurred only due to
the contributory negligence of the deceased.
4. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws1 and 2 were examined and ExP1 to P14 were
marked on the side of the claimants and R.W1 was examined and Ex R1 was marked
on the side of the respondent.
5. After going through the available evidence, the learned Tribunal has
come to a conclusion that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0203, the accident had
occurred and has awarded a sum of Rs.3,09,300/- towards compensation. Aggrieved
by the said award of compensation, the State Transport Corporation has
preferred this appeal.
6. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the award of
compensation in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 1993 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (District Judge) Karur is liable to be reduced for the reasons stated
in the memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.1013 of 1997?
7. The Point:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned
Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the driver of the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-45-N-0203 inspite of the fact that the driver of the bus was
acquitted in the criminal case as per Ex R1 Certified copy of the Judgment .
This point was dealt with by the learned Tribunal at paragraph 5 of its award.
An eye witness was examined before the Tribunal as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence
has clearly stated that on seeing the bus, the deceased had stopped the
scooter. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that a finding in a criminal
Court will not bind on the Civil Court. If the deceased had contributed
negligence to the accident, then the driver of the bus bearing Registration
No.TN-45-N-0203 would have preferred a complaint against the rider of the
scooter. But the First Information Report has been lodged only against the
driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0203 which is seen from Ex P1
F.I.R. The fact that the driver of the bus was acquitted in the criminal case
will not lead us to come to a conclusion that the accident had not occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration
No.TN-45-N-0203.
8. Hence I hold on the point that the award of compensation made in
M.C.O.P.No. 58 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Sub
Court) Karur is liable to be reduced and fixed as Rs.2,23,300/- for the reasons
stated in the memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.1013 of 1997. The point is
answered accordingly.
9. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the award of
compensation in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal(Sub Court) Karur is reduced and fixed as Rs.2,23,300/- . The claimants
are entitled to 12% interest from the date of petition till the date of
realisation. Out of the award amount, the first claimant is entitled to
Rs.1,00,000/-. The minor claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/-
each. The share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 are to be deposited in any one
of the Nationalised Bank in the Fixed Deposit till they attain majority. The
first claimant, the guardian of the minor claimants 2 and 3 is entitled to
withdraw the accured interest from the said Fixed Deposit amount once in three
months for the welfare of the minor claimants 2 and 3. The 4th claimant is
entitled to Rs.20,000/-. The balance of award amount along with accrued
interest and costs is to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank for a
period of one year in equal moiety in favour of 1st and 4th claimants. The first
and fourth claimants are entitled to withdraw the accrued interest once in three
months from their respective shares of award amount in the fixed deposit. In
other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant is
permitted to withdraw the difference of the award amount with proportionate
interest. No costs.
sg
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
( District Judge)
Karur.