IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1444 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.95/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------- DR. J.JAYALALITHA TRANSPORT CORPN., NOW KNOWN AS STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPN., TAMILNADU LTD., CHENNAI-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SIVARAMA PILLA, THODUPARAMBIL PADINJATTOTHIL, KARUVATTA NORTH, KARUVATTA. 2. MINAKSHIAMMAL, -DO- -DO- 3. PRASAD S., -DO- -DO- 4. HARIKUMAR S., -DO- -DO- 5. JAYAKUMAR SELVIN, S/O. CHELLAYYA, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, PALLIYADI P.O., KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU-629 169. 6. LATHIKA, 3814, LONTRY ROAD, PASADONE-TEXAS-77505, U.S.A. ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR FOR R1,2,4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1444 OF 2006 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT ---------------- Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the Dr. Jayalalitha Road Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director, Madras who is the 2nd respondent in OP(MV) No. 95/1995 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 28, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,35,500/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of deceased Suresh Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on November 28, 1994 near K.S.R.T.C bus station, Kayamkulam. Claimants are the parents and brothers of the deceased. The 3rd respondent in the O.P is his sister. M.A.C.A No. 1444 OF 2006 2 2. The accident happened while the deceased was standing on the side of the road, he was knocked down by a bus belonging to Dr. J. Jayalalitha Transport Corporation, Madras. Alleging negligence against first respondent in the O.P, driver of the bus, the claimant filed O.P before the Tribunal under 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs . The first respondent, the driver , 2nd respondent, the owner in the O.P filed a written statement admitting the accident but denied the liability. The 3rd respondent remained absent. The first claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the claimants. The first respondent in the O.P, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 before the Tribunal. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent in the O.P and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,35,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 2nd respondent in the O.P, the owner of the bus has now come M.A.C.A No. 1444 OF 2006 3 up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver of the bu. 3. Heard the counsel for the Appellants and that of the respondents. 4. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal. (i) whether the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent can be sustained? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is excessive. 5. In an attempt to prove that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent in the O.P, he was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. He would say that he saw some persons under the influence of alcohol standing on the side of the road, that one of them fell down hitting his head on a rock on the floor, and that on seeing it he stopped the bus. The Tribunal has chosen not to believe his evidence. Ext. A1 is the F.I.R , Ext.A2 is the Scene Mahazar, Ext. A3 is the Vehicle Mahazar, Ext.A5 is the M.A.C.A No. 1444 OF 2006 4 Post-mortem Certificate. Taking into consideration the fact that police has charged the case against the first respondent and also the fact that the evidence of RW1 cannot be relied on, in our view the Tribunal is perfectly justified that the accident happened due to the negligence of the first respondent in the O.P. the driver of the bus The finding of the Tribunal on this point is confirmed. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation Rs.2,35,500/- The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Funeral expenses : Rs. 7,500 Pain and suffering : Rs.18,000 Love and affection : Rs.18,000 Loss of dependency : Rs.1,92,000 Taking into account of the fact that the deceased was aged 25 at the time of accident that he was a B. Com Degree holder and completed Diploma Course in Computer and that the father of the deceased was employed in U.S.A, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in fixing his monthly income as Rs. 2500/- and adopting a multiplier of 8 and awarding a compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- M.A.C.A No. 1444 OF 2006 5 towards loss of dependency. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads we find the same to be reasonable and not excessive. 7. In the light of our above findings, we hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. A.K. BASHEER Judge P.Q.BARKATH ALI Judge pkk