IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 12.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.139 OF 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vellore. ...Appellant/ Respondent Versus 1.Chennnaiyyan 2.Rajammal ...Respondents/ Claimants Prayer: This appeal is filed u/Sec 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 preferred against the award and decree dated 14.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruppatur. For Appellant : Mr.N.Anand For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2006, dated 14.07.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Sub Court, Tirupattur, on awarding a compensation a sum of Rs.3,46,850/- with interest at the rate of7.5% per annum. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 26.01.1995, the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle on the Kottur to Tirupattur Main road, and at about 8.30 p.m, the respondent's bus, coming in the same direction and driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of this impact, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased had filed the claim petition against the respondent seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The respondent / State Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. It has been stated that the driver of the bus had not been committed the said accident in a rash and negligent manner. Actually, the deceased had attempted to board the running bus, and had invited the accident. The age, income and occupation of the deceased were denied. Besides it was stated that the compensation was on the higher side. 4.On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Who was responsible for the accident? (ii)Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimant? If so what is the quantum of compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimants, two witnesses had been examined viz., P.W.1/1st claimant Mr.Chennaiyan and Mr.Venkatesan. Seven documents had been marked, viz., Ex.P.1 is the Copy of First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is the Copy of Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.3 is the Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P.4 is the Copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P.5 is the pass-port, Ex.P.6 is the Visa and Ex.P.7 is the Air Ticket of the deceased. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6.The first claimant is the father of the deceased and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased. P.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that when his son, deceased Chennappan, was proceeding on his bicycle towards Tirupattur, the Respondents' Bus, driven by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist. As a result, the cyclist died on the spot. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years. Before the accident, the deceased was employed in a foreign country. The deceased was a skilled fitter. 7.R.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that the deceased had himself committed the accident while he had attempted to board the running bus. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,95,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%. The said amount had been reduced by 30% i.e. Rs.3,46,850/-by the Tribunal, on taking into account that the respondent deposits the full lump sum amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant / State Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant /Transport Corporation argued that the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month even in the absence of documentary proof. The claimants age are also mentioned as 45 and 38 years and these are also not correct. The learned Tribunal had fastened the liability on the respondent and this is an erroneous one. 10.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that it was an admitted fact that the deceased was a skilled labourer and a fitter and he had served in Malaysia. To substantiate the same, the claimants had marked Air ticket, Visa and Passport etc., these are vital documents which proves the age and occupation of the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs.4,95,500/-. After this assessment, 30% of the award amount had been reduced, and this is not proper in a fatal case. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of consortium. This amount may be treated under the head of love and affection. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2006, on the file of Sub Court, Tirupattur, dated 14.07.2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that as per documentary evidence, the age and occupation of the deceased had been proved. Based on this aspect, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation as Rs.4,95,500/-. But, after assessment, the Tribunal had reduced the compensation by 30%, and this is not appropriate in the instant case. Therefore, this Court confirms the original assessment amount of a sum of Rs.4,95,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., as this is found to be fair and justifiable. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.4,95,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order subject to deduction of earlier deposited amount. 12. It is open to the claimants, after complying with this Court order, to withdraw the entire compensation with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur, after filing a memo along with this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any, made by the claimants. The compensation amount shall be shared among the claimants equally. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. With the above mentioned observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur made in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2000, dated 14.07.2006 is modified. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. kkd To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. Copy to The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Mr.P.S. Kothandaraman, Advocat, Sr. 26298 C.M.A.NO.139 OF 2008 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2008 PKB (CO) KK 29/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/