IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.2.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.402 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 ....... The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem.7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. 1. Pachiammal 2. Rajambal 3. Kogila ... Respondents/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 19.2.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Mettur. For appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT Transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 19.2.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Mettur. 2. The fatal accident in this case happened on 29.12.1999. The deceased Raja, 49 years, silk weaver, was riding a bi-cycle when he was hit by a bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, he suffered grievous injuries and died. The wife aged 40 years and 2 daughters aged 20 years and 12 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.3500/- p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Perumal, employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. One Muthusamy, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-p.m. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, and adopting 13 multiplier, the Tribunal determined the loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-). In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. SL.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.3,12,000/- 2 Loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to the daughters Rs. 15,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,32,000/- 5. In appeal, The learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.3, the eye witness, has stated in the cross examination that he did not know the date of the accident and against whom the deceased hit the cycle while he was riding it and therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and caused the accident. 6. On the other hand, in examination in chief, P.W.3 has clearly stated that on the date of the accident, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cyclist resulting in his death. On behalf of the appellant, ticket checker was examined as R.W.1. He is not a witness to the accident. The conductor nor the driver of the bus was examined before the Tribunal to support the plea which has been set out in the counter. There is no other material to show as it was the deceased, who hit the bus at the rear end. In any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ event, the theory of the death of the deceased dying after hitting the bus from behind when he was travelling in a cycle is highly improbable. The evidence of P.W.3 in cross-examination as has been extracted above does not support the case of the appellant. Therefore, rejection of the evidence of P.W.3 does not arise. The accident is not disputed by the appellant and therefore, the statement of P.W.3 that he did not know the date of the accident is of no significance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant finding fault with the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be accepted. On going through the award, the reasons given by the Tribunal regarding negligence is justified. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding on this issue. 7. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Ra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Mettur. + 1 cc to M/s. B. Vijayalakshmi Advocate, SR No.6861 + 1 cc to M/s. M.B. Gopalan, Advocate, SR No.6576 CMA No. 402 of 2009 SR(CO) SR/11.3.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/