IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.1792 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.8374 of 2006 The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division - II Vellore-9 .. Appellant/Respondent Vs 1.Alamelu 2.Raja .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amended by M.V.(Amended) Act 1994 against the Award and Decree, dated 01.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri. For appellant : Mrs.S.Geetha for Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil For respondents : Mr.V.Kumaravelan J U D G M E N T The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 01.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,27,500/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 24.03.2003, at about 2.30 a.m. the petitioners along with their minor son Giri were standing in the Hosur Bus Stand. At that time, the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1380 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their minor son and ran over his head. Immediately after the said accident, he was taken to Hosur Government Hospital for treatment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, he was referred to Bangalore Private Hospital, wherein he succumbed and expired since the treatment proved failure. Regarding the said accident, a criminal has been registered against the driver of the bus by the Hosur Traffic Station, in Crime No.52/2002, under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. The accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's Corporation bus. As such, they claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 4.The respondent, in their Counter, had resisted the claim petition as follows: "The petitioner should prove their entitlement to get the compensation from this respondent and also clearly vouchsafe that they have not filed any separate application before any other Court, other than this Court and if it is found later otherwise, their claim before all these Courts shall stand defeated automatically. First and foremost objection of this respondent is denying the alleged accident. There is no such accident took place on the alleged date ie.on 24.03.2002 at 02.30 a.m. at Hosur bus stand. It is a fabricated story that, on 24.03.2002 at about 2.30 a.m.the petitioners and their deceased son were standing in Hosur bus stand for the bus, at that time, the TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1380 driven by its driver in a rash and reckless manner, without observing any traffic rules and regulations, without sounding horn and at an uncontrollable speed came and hit on the deceased. On account of the same, the deceased fell down and front wheel of the bus ran over the body of the deceased subsequently the deceased died in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore on the same day. This respondent strictly denies the above said averments. The petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. This respondent submits that on the alleged day of accident it was a marriage day (ie.) Saturday/Sunday and hence at the alleged time of the accident, already more than 80 passengers were in the bus to go to Tiruvannamalai and several passengers were also waiting for bus to go to Tiruvannamalai. If any accident occurred in the said place definitely, the passengers in the bus and other publics, who were standing in the bus stand, would not have allowed the bus to proceed further. But it was not so. Further initially the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.at Victoria Hospital Police Station https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bangalore and revealed that the death of the individual was purely accidental and suspicious manner. Hence, this respondent is strictly denied the accident. Without prejudice to the above contention, this respondent does not admit the age, and studies of the deceased. The petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the same. Further, the claims made in Column No.21(a) of the petition are all imaginary and fanciful. This respondent does not admit any one of them. The petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The other allegations made in the petition are all categorically denied by this respondent. As there was no accident by the above said bus, on the alleged date, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. At any rate, the claim made is excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated. This respondent reserves this right to file an additional counter at a later stage as and when the new facts come to light. The respondent further submits that A.Radhakrishnan and M.Devendran who travelled in the said bus on the said date from Hosur to Tiruvannamalai had stated that they boarded in Hosur and travelled up to Tiruvannamalai but there was no such incident in the bus." 5.The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? (iii)What other reliefs, the petitioners are entitled to get? 6.On the petitioners' side, the first petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 namely Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Post-mortem Report, Ex.P3-School Certificate. On the respondent's side, the driver of the bus, Krishnamoorthi was examined as RW1 and Checking Inspector, Ranganathan was examined as RW2 and no documents were marked. 7.The PW1, the first claimant had adduced evidence stating that the second claimant is her husband, the deceased Giri, aged about 7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years, who was their son. On 24.03.2003, at about 02.30 a.m. the claimants and their son were standing at Hosur Bus Stop in order to go to Tiruppattur and at that time, the respondent's Corporation bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their son. Immediately, he was taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for treatment, wherein he succumbed and expired since the treatment proved failure. In order to prove the accident, she had marked Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Post-mortem Report and Ex.P3- School Certificate. 8.The RW1 had adduced evidence stating that he is a driver in the respondent's Corporation bus. On 24.03.2002, at about 02.30 a.m. he started the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N138 from Hosur bus stand to proceed to Tiruvannamalai and reached Tiruvanamalai at 06.00 a.m. In between this time, there was no such accident had happened. 9.RW2, who is the checking inspector attached to the respondent's Corporation bus stating that the bus was involved in the accident. 10.After considering the evidence of PW1, RW1 and RW2 and documents, which were marked as exhibits, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's Corporation bus, therefore the respondent/State Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation and awarded the compensation as follows: i. Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life on the deceased, ii.Rs.10,000/- under the head of love and affection to both the claimants, iii.Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of companionship of the deceased, iv.Rs.2,500/- under the head of funeral expenses, v. Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport expenses, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,27,500/- as compensation to the petitioners, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,27,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, within a period of two months from the date of its order. In turn, the said amount to be deposited, under a fixed deposit scheme, in a nationalised bank for a period three years. Accordingly ordered. 11.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Further, no proper First Information Report was registered against the driver. The Tribunal without proper proof as regards the back ground and status in which the deceased was growing up. Further, in this case there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. As such, the learned counsel prays to scale down the compensation before this Court. 13.The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants argued that the boy was eight years old and he was studying in the third standard at that time of the accident. He was extra ordinarily brilliant and was active. The accident had happened in a public area, therefore, a case was registered against the driver of the offending bus. In order to prove the accident, the FIR and Post-mortem were marked. Further, there is no discrepancy in the said award and decree, which is fair and equitable. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the appeal before this Court. 14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the compensation amount ie.Rs.2,27,500/- had been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court is not willing to interfere with the quantum of compensation. This Court concurs with the findings of the Tribunal. Supporting this Court's decision, a Judgment followed, which is reported in ACJ 923, New India Insurace Co., Ltd., vs. Smitha Bandari and others, 2007 ACJ 1870 (SC) Daushly Devi vs Karan Arora and 2002 ACJ 1950, National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Nicolletta Rohatic. 15.On 04.07.2006, this Court enforced a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the compensation amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri. 16.Now this Court directs the appellant Corporation to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 17.After such a deposit being made, the respondents/claimants are at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, by making proper payment out application, subject to the deduction of withdrawals, if any, in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 01.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar krk To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. Order in C.M.A.No.1792 of 2006 VD {CO} TP/22.10.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/