(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and final order passed in M.C.O.P.No.241 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam dated 05.08.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and final order passed in M.C.O.P.No.220 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam dated 05.08.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and final order passed in M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam dated 05.08.2020.)
Common Judgment:
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
1. These three appeals have been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam dated 05.08.2020 in M.C.O.P.Nos.241, 220 and 219 of 2018.
2. The parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants are the legal representatives of the three youngsters aged about 20 and 19, who died in an accident which took place on 25.02.2018. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased were travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-36-AD-7976 on the Athani-Sathi Main Road, near Eluvur Bus Stand from the east to west direction, the respondent Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 33-N-2224 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle as a result of which all the three sustained grievous injuries and succumbed injuries on the same day. Hence, they came forward with the claim petitions seeking compensation.
4. The claim was resisted by the Transport Corporation on the ground that when the bus was stopped at the Eluvur bus stop for the passengers to alight, the two wheeler came on the right side and hit against bus and hence, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. It is the further contention of the Standing counsel that the petitions are not maintainable due to the non-joinder of necessary party as the insurance company of the two wheeler has not been made as a party and the compensation claimed is also on the higher side.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1, but no document was marked.
6. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW4-eye witness and also the contradictory stands taken by the Corporation in the counter affidavit and the evidence of RW1, came to the conclusion that only the driver of the bus was negligent and awarded the compensation as follows:
M.C.O.P.No.219 of 2018
| SI.No. | Heads of Compensation | Amount in Rs. |
| 1 | Loss of Dependency (10,500/- x 12 x18) | 22,68,000.00 |
| 2 | Transportation charges | 10,000.00 |
| 3 | Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.50,000/- each) | 1,00,000.00 |
| 4 | Funeral Expenses | 25,000.00 |
| Total | 24,03,000.00 |
| SI.No. | Heads of Compensation | Amount in Rs. |
| 1. | Loss of Dependency (6,300/- x 12 x18) | 13,60,800.00 |
| 2 | Transportation charges | 10,000.00 |
| 3 | Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.50,000/- each) | 1,00,000.00 |
| 4 | Funeral Expenses | 25,000.00 |
| Total | 14,95,800.00 |
| SI.No. | Heads of Compensation | Amount in Rs. |
| 1. | Loss of Dependency (6,300/- x 12 x18) | 13,60,800.00 |
| 2 | Transportation charges | 10,000.00 |
| 3 | Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.50,000/- each) | 1,00,000.00 |
| 4 | Funeral Expenses | 25,000.00 |
| Total | 14,95,800.00 |
7. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation would mainly contend that three persons travelled in a two wheeler and hence, there is contributory negligence and therefore, some amount has to be deducted towards contributory negligence. The learned counsel has not seriously disputed the quantum awarded by the Tribunal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that mere travelling of three persons in a two wheeler does not amount to negligence on the part of the deceased and no evidence has been produced on the side of the Transport Corporation to prove that travelling of three persons alone had caused the accident.
9. As the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is not disputed during submission, we deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on the aspect of contributory negligence alone.
10. Now the point of consideration in this appeal is, whether the contributory negligence as pleaded by the Transport Corporation is proved in a manner known to law?
11. A careful perusal of evidences of PW4, the eye witness and RW1 indicate that the bus was coming behind the motorcycle and dashed against the same, which resulted in the death of three persons in the motorcycle. This aspect was clearly spoken to by PW4 (eye witness). The evidence of RW1, the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation would show as if the two wheeler dashed against the bus on the right side, but in his cross-examination, RW1 has taken a stand that when the bus stopped at Eluvur bus stop for the passengers to alight, at that time the accident took place. The evidence of PW4 would clearly show that the two wheeler was hit from behind. Therefore, if the driver of the bus has maintained the reasonable distance between the bus and the two wheeler, he could have avoided the accident. Therefore, we are of the view that when the two wheeler was hit from behind, contributory negligence cannot be fixed on the persons travelled in the two wheeler when there is no evidence to establish loss of control or proximate connection with the accident. It is a settled principle of law that breach of a statutory condition by itself is not enough to fasten contributory negligence unless there is evidence to establish the same. Therefore, we are of the view the negligence cannot be fastened on the deceased, as the bus came from behind and dashed against the two wheeler.
12. In view of the above, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the award dated 05.08.2020 in M.C.O.P.Nos.219, 220 and 241 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam is confirmed. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.