The Managing DirectorTamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division - IIVellore-9 v. Alamelu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.10.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNANC.M.A.No.1792 of 2006andC.M.P.No.8374 of 2006The Managing DirectorTamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division - IIVellore-9 .. Appellant/RespondentVs1.Alamelu2.Raja .. Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,amended by M.V.(Amended) Act 1994 against the Award and Decree, dated01.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri.For appellant : Mrs.S.Geetha for Mr.Rajnish PathiyilFor respondents : Mr.V.KumaravelanJ U D G M E N TThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by theappellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 01.12.2003,made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation ofRs.2,27,500/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date offiling the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, theappellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale downthe award and decree passed by the Tribunal.3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 24.03.2003, at about 2.30 a.m. the petitioners along withtheir minor son Giri were standing in the Hosur Bus Stand. At thattime, the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23N1380 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against theirminor son and ran over his head. Immediately after the saidaccident, he was taken to Hosur Government Hospital for treatment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, he was referred to Bangalore Private Hospital, wherein hesuccumbed and expired since the treatment proved failure. Regardingthe said accident, a criminal has been registered against the driverof the bus by the Hosur Traffic Station, in Crime No.52/2002, underSections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. The accident had happened only due tothe rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent'sCorporation bus. As such, they claimed a compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal.4.The respondent, in their Counter, had resisted the claimpetition as follows:"The petitioner should prove theirentitlement to get the compensation from thisrespondent and also clearly vouchsafe that theyhave not filed any separate application beforeany other Court, other than this Court and if itis found later otherwise, their claim before allthese Courts shall stand defeated automatically.First and foremost objection of thisrespondent is denying the alleged accident.There is no such accident took place on thealleged date ie.on 24.03.2002 at 02.30 a.m. atHosur bus stand. It is a fabricated story that,on 24.03.2002 at about 2.30 a.m.the petitionersand their deceased son were standing in Hosur busstand for the bus, at that time, the TNSTC busbearing registration No.TN23 N1380 driven by itsdriver in a rash and reckless manner, withoutobserving any traffic rules and regulations,without sounding horn and at an uncontrollablespeed came and hit on the deceased. On accountof the same, the deceased fell down and frontwheel of the bus ran over the body of thedeceased subsequently the deceased died inVictoria Hospital, Bangalore on the same day.This respondent strictly denies the above saidaverments. The petitioners are put to strictproof of the same.This respondent submits that on the allegedday of accident it was a marriage day (ie.)Saturday/Sunday and hence at the alleged time ofthe accident, already more than 80 passengerswere in the bus to go to Tiruvannamalai andseveral passengers were also waiting for bus togo to Tiruvannamalai. If any accident occurredin the said place definitely, the passengers inthe bus and other publics, who were standing inthe bus stand, would not have allowed the bus toproceed further. But it was not so. Furtherinitially the case was registered under Section174 of Cr.P.C.at Victoria Hospital Police Station https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bangalore and revealed that the death of theindividual was purely accidental and suspiciousmanner. Hence, this respondent is strictlydenied the accident.Without prejudice to the above contention,this respondent does not admit the age, andstudies of the deceased. The petitioners havenot produced any documentary evidence to provethe same. Further, the claims made in ColumnNo.21(a) of the petition are all imaginary andfanciful. This respondent does not admit any oneof them. The petitioners are put to strict proofof the same. The other allegations made in thepetition are all categorically denied by thisrespondent.As there was no accident by the above saidbus, on the alleged date, this respondent is notliable to pay any compensation to thepetitioners. At any rate, the claim made isexcessive, exorbitant and exaggerated.This respondent reserves this right to filean additional counter at a later stage as andwhen the new facts come to light.The respondent further submits thatA.Radhakrishnan and M.Devendran who travelled inthe said bus on the said date from Hosur toTiruvannamalai had stated that they boarded inHosur and travelled up to Tiruvannamalai butthere was no such incident in the bus."5.The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issuesfor the consideration namely:(i)Who is responsible for the accident? (ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to getcompensation? (iii)What other reliefs, the petitioners areentitled to get?6.On the petitioners' side, the first petitioner herself wasexamined as PW1 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3namely Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Post-mortem Report,Ex.P3-School Certificate. On the respondent's side, the driver ofthe bus, Krishnamoorthi was examined as RW1 and Checking Inspector,Ranganathan was examined as RW2 and no documents were marked.7.The PW1, the first claimant had adduced evidence stating thatthe second claimant is her husband, the deceased Giri, aged about 7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years, who was their son. On 24.03.2003, at about 02.30 a.m. theclaimants and their son were standing at Hosur Bus Stop in order togo to Tiruppattur and at that time, the respondent's Corporation buscame in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their son.Immediately, he was taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore fortreatment, wherein he succumbed and expired since the treatmentproved failure. In order to prove the accident, she had markedEx.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Post-mortem Report and Ex.P3-School Certificate. 8.The RW1 had adduced evidence stating that he is a driver inthe respondent's Corporation bus. On 24.03.2002, at about 02.30 a.m.he started the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N138 from Hosur busstand to proceed to Tiruvannamalai and reached Tiruvanamalai at 06.00a.m. In between this time, there was no such accident had happened.9.RW2, who is the checking inspector attached to therespondent's Corporation bus stating that the bus was involved in theaccident.10.After considering the evidence of PW1, RW1 and RW2 anddocuments, which were marked as exhibits, the learned Tribunal hadcome to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to therash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent'sCorporation bus, therefore the respondent/State TransportCorporation is liable to pay compensation and awarded thecompensation as follows:i.Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss ofexpectation of life on the deceased,ii.Rs.10,000/- under the head of love and affectionto both the claimants,iii.Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss ofcompanionship of the deceased,iv.Rs.2,500/- under the head of funeral expenses,v.Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport expenses,In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,27,500/- ascompensation to the petitioners, together with interest at the rateof 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till thedate of payment of compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed therespondent to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,27,500/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date offiling the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation,within a period of two months from the date of its order. In turn,the said amount to be deposited, under a fixed deposit scheme, in anationalised bank for a period three years. Accordingly ordered.11.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, theappellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued thatthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.Further, no proper First Information Report was registered againstthe driver. The Tribunal without proper proof as regards the background and status in which the deceased was growing up. Further, inthis case there was contributory negligence on the part of thedeceased. As such, the learned counsel prays to scale down thecompensation before this Court.13.The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants argued thatthe boy was eight years old and he was studying in the third standardat that time of the accident. He was extra ordinarily brilliant andwas active. The accident had happened in a public area, therefore, acase was registered against the driver of the offending bus. Inorder to prove the accident, the FIR and Post-mortem were marked.Further, there is no discrepancy in the said award and decree, whichis fair and equitable. Therefore, the learned counsel prays todismiss the appeal before this Court.14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, thearguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either sideand the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of theview that the compensation amount ie.Rs.2,27,500/- had been awardedby the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which isfair and equitable. Therefore, this Court is not willing tointerfere with the quantum of compensation. This Court concurs withthe findings of the Tribunal. Supporting this Court's decision, aJudgment followed, which is reported in ACJ 923, New India InsuraceCo., Ltd., vs. Smitha Bandari and others, 2007 ACJ 1870 (SC) DaushlyDevi vs Karan Arora and 2002 ACJ 1950, National Insurance Co., Ltd.,vs. Nicolletta Rohatic.15.On 04.07.2006, this Court enforced a condition on theappellant to deposit 50% of the compensation amount, into the creditof the M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri.16.Now this Court directs the appellant Corporation to depositthe balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon andcosts, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file ofthe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within aperiod of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.17.After such a deposit being made, the respondents/claimantsare at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying inthe credit of the M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, by making properpayment out application, subject to the deduction of withdrawals, ifany, in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissedand the Award and Decree, dated 01.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,Krishnagiri is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrarkrk To1.The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. Order in C.M.A.No.1792 of 2006VD {CO}TP/22.10.2010.