THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.1759 of 2003 and 3028 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: As both these appeals, one by the claimants and another by the insurance company, respectively are filed against the same award dated 20-1-2003 passed in OP No.158 of 1998 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Chittoor District, they are being taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-on 17-9-1997 the deceased- Jayaram who was the driver of the tourist bus bearing registration no.TAU- 5859 was attending to repairs of the bus by parking it on the extreme left side of the road at Ganesh Keeyangi Keelpuram on Trichy-Tanjore highway and the cleaner of the bus was assisting him. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN 49N 0389 belonging to Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Trichy towards Tanjore and dashed the stationed bus, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries as the tyres of the accident bus went on the deceased and he died on the way to the hospital. It is further stated that the cleaner who was along with the deceased also sustained injuries. The wife, children and parents filed the above MVOP seeking compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- from the owner of the tourist bus of which the deceased was driver, insurer of the said bus and the Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Limited, which is owner of the bus stated to have caused the accident. 3. To prove the accident, the claimants filed Ex.A-1 & A-2 which are copies of FIR and English translation thereof, which show that the tourist bus driven by the deceased-Jayaram was stationed on the left side of the road and the accident bus belonging to the Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation dashed it from behind. The evidence of PW-2, cleaner of the tourist bus and also an eye witness to the accident was to the effect that the tourist bus was parked at left side of the road and the accident bus driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed it from behind. Though RW-1 driver of the accident bus was examined, his version that the tourist bus was stationed in the middle of the road could not be substantiated. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident bus bearing registration No.TN 49N 0389, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for interference by this Court. Coming to the question of award of just compensation, as seen from the evidence of PW-1 wife of the deceased, she stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month besides Rs.100/- per day as batta. However, the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at 27 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy, capable of earring Rs.2,000/- per month, rightly took the income at Rs.2,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.24,000/-. Inasmuch as there are six dependents including parents, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 (6) SCALE 129), 1/4th amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. Considering the age of the deceased at 27 years as on the date of the accident, the loss of dependency works out to (2,000 x 12 x 17 – 1/4th) Rs.3,06,000/-. To this amount, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and other claimants to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, totalling to Rs.3,26,000/-. However, the rate of interest on the total amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal at 9 % per annum is reduced to 6 % per annum in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 (6) SCALE 129). 4. Inasmuch as the appeal filed by the insurance company is concerned, the categorically finding of the Tribunal on the question of culpability in causing the accident is solely fixed on the driver of the accident bus i.e. TN 49-N 0389 (Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Limited) under those circumstances the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer of the tourist bus, which the deceased was driving. In the circumstances, the appellant-insurance company is exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation. The compensation is liable to be paid only by the driver of the accident bus i.e. TN 49-N 0389 and/or the Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Limited, which is the owner of the bus, jointly or severally. However, it is made clear that any amounts paid to the claimants by the appellant-insurance company shall have to be recovered from the driver of the accident bus i.e. TN 49-N 0389 and/or the Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Limited, which is the owner of the bus and not from the claimants. 5. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated 13-8-2010 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.1759 of 2003 and 3028 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: 13-8-2010