IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 140 of 2002() ------------------------------- OP(MV).802/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------- TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADURAI, NAGERCOIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: APPLICANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------ 1. RAJINI JOHN, NAGAMANGALATHUVILA VEEDU, PACODE POST, KUZHITHURA (VIA), K.K.DISTRICT. 2. JOHN RELTON, -DO-. 3. SANFRED JOHN, -DO-. 4. SAMUEL, -DO-. 5. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. NAGALINGAM, HOUSE NO.36/A, KALLIYANGADU, CHAGAKADA WARD, ALLOOR, AGASTHEESWARAM, K.K.DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.T. PRADEEP THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.140 OF 200 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, who was the additional third respondent in O.P.(M.V)No.802 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvanathapuram, filed this appeal. On 29.5.1995 at 7.30 a.m. in the morning a passenger in the bus owned by the appellant fell down from the bus due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the second respondent. Second respondent was employed by the appellant. The bus started from Nagarcoil to Thiruvananthapuram. The accident occurred at Nemom. It is the case of the appellant that the passenger was standing half-sleeping in the foot board and that is why the accident occurred, but, that was not accepted by the Tribunal. After preliminary investigation, police charge-sheeted the driver of the bus. Tribunal also noticed that the driver or conductor, employees of the appellant, should not have allowed the passenger to travel in the foot board. So, there is also negligence on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the passenger was not accepted rightly by the Tribunal. We see no ground to interfere with the above finding. Secondly it was contended that the amount awarded was on the higher MFA.140/2002 2 side. Deceased left behind his young wife and three children. The deceased was aged 37. The dependents claimed that he was a mason and getting Rs.4,000/= per month. PW1 also deposed that the deceased was getting Rs.150/= day. PW2, a co-worker, deposed that he was getting Rs.180/= per day. The Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/= as the monthly income for calculating compensation, reduced Rs.1,000/= for personal empenses and Rs.2,000/= was taken as the multiplicand. Since the deceased was aged 37, taking guidelines from the second schedule 16 was ataken as the multiplier and the compensation was calculated. Even though first respondent widow was very young and there were three children, for the loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. together Rs.14,500/= was awarded. We are of the opinion that only just and reasonable compensation was awarded and no interference is required in the award. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks