(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree passed in MCOP.No. 107 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Addl. District Judge, Namakkal on 15.07.2022.)

N. Mala, J.

(1) The Transport Corporation, has filed the above appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal, dated 15.07.2022, made in MCOP.No.107/2017.

(2) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition.

(3) The summary of facts leading to the above appeal, are as follows:- On 17.08.2016, at about 9.45 p.m., when the deceased Karthikeyan, was riding his TVS Honda City motorcycle, bearing Regn.No.TN-34-P-0167, on Namakkal-Trichy Main Road, the Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN-30-N-0021, which was coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased’s motorcycle, causing him multiple grievous injuries. The said Karthikeyan, unfortunately succumbed to the injuries on 22.08.2016, in the hospital. According to the claimants, who are the wife, mother and children of the deceased Karthikeyan, the deceased was aged 38 years and as a practising Advocate at District and Sessions and Subordinate Courts in Namakkal District, was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the time of the accident. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation, for the death of their sole breadwinner.

(4) The claim petition was contested by the Transport Corporation which contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Karthikeyan. The Transport Corporation further contended that the compensation claimed, was excessive, imaginary and speculative and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

(5) Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and one Ramaraj, an eyewitness to the accident, was examined as PW2. The claimants filed 13 documents in support of their case. On the side of the respondent, no documentary evidence was filed, but the driver of the bus was examined as RW1.

(6) The Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, returned a finding of negligence against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. The Claims Tribunal held that the Transport Corporation, as the owner of the bus, was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.31,74,752/- to the claimants along with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the Award of the Claims Tribunal, the Transport Corporation has preferred the above appeal.

(7) The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation at the time of the hearing of the appeal, raised a solitary issue of the deceased contributing to the accident, by not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. The learned counsel submitted that had the deceased worn a helmet at the time of the accident, the death could have been averted.

(8) No other point was raised before us.

(9) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.

(10) On the issue of negligence, we find that the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P1-FIR, and the evidence of PW2, the eyewitness to the accident, returned a finding of negligence against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. The Transport Corporation contends that the Claims Tribunal failed to note that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident despite the same being spoken to by RW1, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. No doubt, RW1 had spoken about the manner of accident and also that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. However, we find from the counter of the Transport Corporation that no pleading was raised regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased in not wearing a helmet. Therefore, in the absence of any pleading regarding the non-wearing of helmet by the deceased, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Claims Tribunal that the rash and negligent driving of RW1, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, resulted in the accident.

(11) Since the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation has not raised any other issue, we confirm the Award of the Claims Tribunal with respect to the other aspects.

(12) We therefore find no merit in the appeal and hence, the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal dated 15.07.2022, made in MCOP.No.107/2017, is confirmed.

(13) The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, viz., Rs.31,74,750/- [Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only] along with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the web order of this judgment, if not already deposited. The respondents, on such deposit by the Transport Corporation, shall be entitled to withdraw the same along with the accrued interest, as per the apportionment directed by the Claims Tribunal, by filing appropriate application before the Claims Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.