Full Judgment
2. The petitioners, who are the parents and brother of the (deceased) Gopi, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 1996, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Gopi in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 09.02.2005, at about 08.30 a.m., when the (deceased) Gopi was proceeding on the road on the south side of "Lakshmi Theatre", in order to pass stools, from east to west, on the extreme left of the road, the 1st respondent's TVS-50 motor cycle bearing registration not TAK-826 coming from east to west, on the same road and ridden at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its rider dashed against the (deceased) Gopi and caused the accident. As a result, the (deceased) sustained grievous injuries all over his body and was admitted at Kulithalai Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given and subsequently he was referred to Trichy Government Head Quarters Hospital for treatment. But, inspite of treatment, the (deceased) Gopi succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 22 years and was working as a weaver and earning Rs.1,500/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the TVS-50 bearing registration not TAK-826.
3. The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident had been caused not due to any negligence on the part of the rider of the 1st respondents motorcycle but only due to the negligence of the (deceased) Gopi, who had suddenly tried to cross the road and invited the accident. It was submitted that as the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident, only the 2nd respondent can be held liable to pay compensation, if so decided by the Tribunal.
4. The 2nd respondent, in his counter had denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was contended that the driver of the 1st respondents motorcycle rode the vehicle in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the (deceased) who had suddenly tried to cross the road. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely: Ex.P1-post mortem certificate; Ex.P2-Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P3-salary certificate; Ex.P4-legal heir certificate. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and six documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R6 namely: Ex.R1-Inspector's Report; Ex.R2- F.I.R; Ex.R3-copy of Insurance Policy; Ex.R4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.R5-rough sketch; Ex.R6-information given by 1st petitioner and PW.2.
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case name: (1)Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2)Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and what is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner's are entitled to get?. It is seen on scrutiny of Ex.P1-F.I.R, that the compliant had been given by the 3rd petitioner i.e., Pannerselvam, who is the brother of the (deceased). It has been mentioned by him in the F.I.R that on 09.02.1995, at about 08.30 a.m., when he and his (deceased) younger brother Gopi were proceeding on the south side of the "Lakshmi Theatre" at Kulithalai, in order to complete their morning oblutions and when his brother Gopi, after completing his morning oblutions was proceeding on the left side of the main road, he had seen the 1st respondents TVS-50 vehicle coming on the same road, with one Muruganantham as the rider and another pillion rider, dashed against his brother and cause the accident. It was further stated that in the F.I.R and his brother Gopi, had sustained injuries all over his body.
7. On scrutiny of Ex.P5-rough sketch, it is seen that the accident had occurred on the south side of the road and not on the centre of the road as contended by the respondents. The Tribunal opined that if the TVS-50 vehicle driver had been more observant, he could have seen the person walking ahead of his car and prevented the accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P4-Motor vehicle Inspector's Report, it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanism failure of the vehicle.
8. RW.1, had adduced evidence that one Muruganandham had ridder the TVS- 50 motor cycle and not Sivasami. However, it is seen that the Criminal case regarding accident had been filed against the said Sivasami and that he had also admitted his guilt and paid the fine. On considering this aspect, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the 1st and 2nd respondents. Based on the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation payable to parents of deceased as a sum of Rs.2,21,000/- and directed the 1st and 2nd respondent's to pay the same, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
9. Against, the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant herein has filed the above appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a bachelor and as such only 50% of his monthly income should have been deducted for his personal expenses. Further, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of '17', which is also on the higher side. The learned counsel further submits that the parents of the deceased are not depending upon the income of the deceased.
10. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased is aged about 27 years and he was an earning member through weaving profession. The deceased had extended his Co-operation by way of contributing his entire income to his parents. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of love and affection and funeral expenses. Further, the Tribunal, had not granted compensation towards transport. The rate of interest fixed at 6% is also on the lower side.
11. On going through the case papers and on hearing the arguments of the highly competent counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the rider of the offending vehicle had admitted his guilt and paid the fine amount for his negligent driving. The offending vehicle had been insured with the appellant herein. As such the liability had been fastened on the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal had properly decided the two relevant issues and passed the said award. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said award. As per records, it is seen that this Court had imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest.
12. Now, it is open to all the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.194 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kulithalai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.
13. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kulithalai, dated 30.04.2008, is confirmed. No costs. ub To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kulithalai. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.