(Prayers: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree made in MCOP No.44 of 2019, dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC/Additional District Court, Karur and pass such other or further orders.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree made in MCOP No.45 of 2019, dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC/Additional District Court, Karur and pass such other or further orders.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree made in MCOP No.47 of 2019, dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC/Additional District Court, Karur and pass such other or further orders.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree made in MCOP No.46 of 2019, dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC/Additional District Court, Karur and pass such other or further orders.)
Common Judgment:
R. Poornima, J.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common award, dated 25.02.2021 passed in MCOP Nos.44 to 47 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC Mahila Court/Additional District Judge, Karur.
2. The facts in brief:
On 07.11.2018, the deceased Sivaram was driving a Car bearing registration no. TN-47-AF-4558 along with his wife Shalini, son Lakshan, brother Nirmalkumar and father Loganathan as occupants of the Car on the Trichy-Chennai NH-45. At about 06.50 am, when the Car was nearing Veppur Iyappa Polytechnic College, a Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration no. TN-32-N-2476 driven by its driver ahead of the Car in the same direction and without showing any signal or horn, suddenly turned the Bus towards its left side to go to Kallakurichi. In that process, the Bus dashed into the Car and as a result of which, Sivaram, Loganathan and Nirmal Kumar succumbed to injuries on the spot, whereas Shalini sustained injuries. Immediately, after the accident, Shalini was taken to the Government Hospital, Ulundhurpet and then shifted to the Apollo Hospital, Trichy. Thereafter, she was referred to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, where she took treatment for three months as an inpatient.
3. Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.350 of 2018 was registered by the Veppur Police Station for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus.
4. At the time of the accident, the deceased Loganathan was aged about 59 years and was working as an Additional Special Personal Assistant to the Minister for Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu and earning Rs 1,40,000/- per month. Seeking compensation amount of Rs 75,00,000/-, the wife of the deceased Loganathan, filed the claim petition in MCOP No.44 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC Mahila Court, Karur.
5. At the time of the accident, the deceased Nirmal Kumar was aged about 25 years and he was working as an Assistant Manager in M/s.Knowledge Lens Private Limited, Electronic City, Phase-I, Bangalore and earning Rs.52,000/- per month. Seeking compensation amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, the mother of the deceased Nirmal Kumar filed the claim petition in MCOP No.45 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC Mahila Court, Karur.
6. At the time of the accident, the deceased Sivaram was aged about 28 years and he was a Shareholder-cum-Manager in M/s.Knowledge Lens Private Limited, Electronic City, Phase-I, Bangalore and earning Rs.3,00,000/-per month. Seeking compensation amount of Rs.6,00,00,000/-, the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased Sivaram filed the claim petition in MCOP No.46 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC Mahila Court, Karur.
7. Similarly, at the time of the accident, the petitioner in MCOP No.47 of 2019 was aged about 26 years and was working as a Consultant in M/s.Knowledge Lens Private Limited, Electronic City, Phase-I, Bangalore and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and for the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.
8. The 1st respondent Transport Corporation filed a counter disputing the manner of the accident and their liability to pay the compensation. That apart, they also disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the injured. It is the further contention of the Transport Corporation that the occurrence took place because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Car driver; he without minding the traffic regulations, invited the accident. So, the driver of the car is only responsible.
9. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed a separate counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus and he is solely responsible for the accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions as against them.
10. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10, and 69 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P69. On the side of the respondents, 3 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and 8 documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R8.
11. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal found that the occurrence took place due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the Transport Corporation Bus driver. So, the Tribunal fixed the responsibility upon the Bus driver and the total compensation amount was also calculated as per the settled proposition of law as detailed:-
| MCOP NO. 44 of 2019 | Rs. 56,54,979/- |
| MCOP NO. 45 of 2019 | Rs. 53,08,255/- |
| MCOP NO. 46 of 2019 | Rs. 2,88,28,360/- |
| MCOP NO. 47 of 2019 | Rs. 9,76,866/- |
(i)The Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the appellant Transport Bus was solely responsible for the accident, without considering the materials on record;
(ii)The Tribunal has failed to fix the entire negligence on the part of the Car driver, since the Car rammed behind the Bus which was moving from South-North in the same direction and caused the accident, but without appreciating the above aspect, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the entire responsibility for the accident only on the part of the driver of the Bus.
13. Heard both sides.
14. The occurrence took place on 07.11.2018 at about 06.50 am not denied or disputed. It is not denied that, over the occurrence against the appellant Transport Corporation Bus a criminal case was filed.
15. According to the appellant, the occurrence was the result of the rash and negligent act committed by the Car driver. The driver of the Car driving at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, rammed into the bus from behind, as a result of which the Conductor of bus was thrown off the footboard and sustained injuries. Three occupants of the Car died on the spot and a female occupant also sustained injuries.
16. P.W.1, the injured eye witness to the occurrence deposed that she was seated in the back side of the Car and witnessed the accident. She further deposed there was negligence on the part of the Bus driver who drove the bus rash and negligently. While proceeding ahead of the Car in the same direction, was suddenly turned the Bus to the left side without giving any signal or horn and due to the sudden act of the bus driver, the car dashed against the bus.
17. The driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1. He has deposed that when he was turning the Bus towards reach Koothakudi service road after switching on the indicator light and hand signal through the conductor of the Bus and by showing hand signal by the conductor, the Maruti Car dashed against the Bus from behind.
18. The evidence of R.W.2, the Conductor of the Bus, corroborated the evidence of R.W.1.
19. The Tribunal, held that if the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus was not responsible for the accident, he would have immediately lodged complaint before the police. Though the appellant stated in their counter that the driver of the Bus lodged complaint before the police, but due to political pressure, FIR was not registered against him. However, the driver of the Bus who was examined as R.W.1 did not state in his evidence that he had lodged any complaint before the police. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred, solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus.
20. On perusal of records, it reveals that on the side of the respondent, R.W.3, Head Constable of the Veppur Police Station, the jurisdiction Police where the FIR was registered (Ex.P1). Through him, Ex.R4 to Ex.R8 were marked viz., photographs depicting the place of occurrence, and condition of both Corporation Bus and the Maruti car after accident. He admitted during cross examination that the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus surrendered before the police station and that the FIR was registered only against the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus. It is also admitted that the accident occurred when the Transport Corporation Bus took on its left side. R.W.3 further stated that during investigation, it was found that the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus was negligent. Based on the above evidence the Tribunal fixed the entire liability on the part of the driver of the Corporation Bus. However, the appellant/Transport Corporation consistently contended that, the driver while taking a left turn had properly switched on indicator and the conductor also gave hand signal, but the driver of the Maruti Car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and collided with a rear of the Transport Corporation bus. As a result of impact the conductor fell down and sustained injuries. In order to prove the same, the medical records Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked through Thiru.Thanga Velu, Conductor who was examined as R.W.2. The medical record shows that on the date of occurrence, the conductor also sustained injuries due to the accident and admitted in the hospital.
21. The photographs and rough sketch produced by R.W.3 also reveals that the Transport Corporation Bus was proceeding from South to North that is from Trichy-Chennai National Highway, and the Maruti car was followed the bus. The accident spot, which was marked in the aforesaid photograph reveals that the accident occurred on the diversion road leading to Kallakurichi. It was admitted by the appellant, that when the Corporation Bus about to turn into the left side of the road, in order to enter into diversion, the accident occurred. Ex.R5 rough sketch prepared by the investigating officer also corroborated with the Ex.R4 (Photo copy of the accident place). Ex.R8 a photograph taken soon after the accident, shows that half portion of the Maruti car had rammed into the right side of the Transport Corporation Bus. According to the claimant, the accident occurred, when the Corporation Bus suddenly turned into the left into diversion road without giving any signal or indicator. In such a case, the Maruti Car ought to have collided with the left side of the Corporation Bus. But however, the photograph clearly reveals that the Car struck behind the rear portion of the right side of the Corporation Bus.
22. In this case R.W.3, admitted during cross examination that as per Traffic Rules, a vehicle following another vehicle required to maintain safe distance, specifically a minimum distance of 10 feet should be maintained. The way in which the Maruti Car rammed into the Corporation Bus indicates that the Maruti car was also driven at a high speed and that while it was, about to overtake the Corporation Bus, the Corporation bus suddenly turned on its left side, leaving the driver of the Maruti Car with no control, as a result of which the Maruti Car rammed into the Bus. Consequently, R.W.2, the conductor fell down and sustained injury. The driver of the Maruti car and two occupants sustained grievous injuries and subsequently they succumbed to the injuries, while one of the occupant sustained grievous injury but survived. This reveals that the driver of the Maruti car also contributed for the accident by driving the vehicle at a high speed. A person driving a vehicle on the highway must always maintain a safe distance of 10 feet from the vehicle proceeded ahead. Had the Maruti Car driven in a slow and study manner, the accident could have been avoided and several lives could have been saved. The Tribunal without considering the aforesaid material aspects, factual circumstances, and documentary evidence, appreciated the evidence on record but mechanically fastened the entire liability on the driver of the Corporation Bus, which is unsustainable in law. Taking into consideration of the entire circumstances this Court fixes 35% of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car alone, not for other inmates, who are innocent passengers.
23. In respect of compensation awarded in MCOP No. 44 of 2019, MCOP No. 45 of 2019, MCOP No. 47 of 2019, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality and accordingly the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
24. However, in so far as the claim relating to the deceased Sivaram is concerned, it is held that the deceased who was driver of the Maruti Car bearing registration number TN-47-AF-4558 was guilty of contributory negligence. Accordingly, for the negligence on the part of the deceased, 35% shall stands deducted. After deducting 35%, remaining 65% of the award amount shall be payable to the claimants in respect of MCOP No. 46 of 2019 together with interest and cost as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-calculated as under:-
| Head | Award of theTribunal | Award of thisCourt | status |
| Loss of future income | 2,86,68,360/- | 2,86,68,360/- | confirmed |
| Loss of consortium(3 x40,000) | 1,20,000/- | 1,20,000/- | confirmed |
| Loss of estate | 15,000/- | 15,000/- | confirmed |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000/- | 15,000/- | confirmed |
| Transport expenses | 10,000/- | 10,000/- | confirmed |
| Total | 2,88,28,360/- | 2,88,28,360/- | confirmed |
| 65% compensation | 1,87,38,434/- | Modified |
26. Accordingly, CMA(MD)No.1124 of 2021 is partly allowed and the compensation amount of Rs.2,88,28,360/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and reduced to Rs.1,87,38,434/-. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire modified compensation, after deducting the amount if any already deposited, with proportionate interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit, the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their share as per the apportionment of the Tribunal by making necessary application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimant shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank on fixed deposit scheme till he attains majority. The 1st claimant being the mother and natural guardian of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued in the fixed deposit once in three months for the welfare of the minor. Excess amount if any, the same shall be returned back to the appellant Transport Corporation.
27. In the result, CMA(MD)No.1124 of 2021 is partly allowed to the above extent. CMA(MD)Nos.1029, 1030 and 1068 of 2021 are dismissed. No cost. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.