IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1424 OF 2004 C.M.P.No.7581 of 2004 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Salem Divn.I) Ltd., Salem -7, Rep. by its Managing Director ... Appellant Versus 1.P.G.Palaniammal 2.Parthiban ... Respondents Prayer: This appeal is preferred against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2000, dated 29.04.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mettur. For Appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran For Respondents : No Appearance - - - J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / State Transport Corporation, against the award and decree dated 29.04.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mettur. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 24.10.1999, at about 6.10 p.m., the deceased Chinnaswamy was travelling on his motorcycle on the Omalur to Dharmapuri Road, when at that time, the respondent bus bearing Registration No. TN27 N 1041 driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcyclist. In the result, he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Hence, the legal-heirs of the deceased have filed this claim petition against the respondents for compensation for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest. 3.The respondent / State Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The age, income and occupation of the deceased was denied. Actually, the accident had been committed by the deceased, who rode the vehicle in a reckless manner and suddenly crossed the road and dashed against the bus, the claim amount is excessive. 4.On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed three issues for consideration, namely; (i)Who had committed the accident in a rash and negligent manner? (ii)Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents? If so what is the quantum of compensation the claimants are entitled to receive? 5.On the side of the claimants three witnesses had been examined and sixteen documents were marked, namely, First Information Report, Postmortem Report, pension order, land documents particulars, legal-heir certificates, driving licence etc., On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that she is the wife of deceased Chinnaswamy, 2nd claimant is the son of the deceased. On 24.10.1999 at 6.10 p.m., the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle on the Dharmapuri-Omalur Main Road, when at that time, the respondent bus came at high speed and dashed against him, resulting in his expiry on the spot. In order to prove the accident, she had marked the FIR and Postmortem Certificate. PW1 further adduced evidence that the deceased's age was 55 years and he was a driver and his monthly salary was Rs.15,496/- and he was also an ex- serviceman. 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had fixed the income as Rs.6,000/- per month and adopted the multiplier '8' and after deducting 1/3 of the income as personal expenses, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.3,84,000/- besides Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant / State Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. 9.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation amount had been assessed by the Tribunal without relevant records for age and income. 10.Learned counsel for the claimants argued that in order to prove the income and age of the deceased, the claimants had marked driving licence, pension certificate, employment certificate and land documents. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the impugned award, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court is unable to find any discrepancy in the said award. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had properly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded the compensation on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the impugned decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as such the award is confirmed as fair and equitable. 12.It is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon as fixed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mettur, after filing necessary payment out application, subject to withdrawals if any made already, as per this Court order dated 30.04.2004. 13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Sub Court, Mettur, made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2000, dated 29.04.2002 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. r n s To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mettur