The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division II) vs D. Rani and Others

G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2003 made in MCOP. No. 409 of 2000 by the

learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated

21.02.2003, to a tune of Rs. 3,56,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Six Thousand only) on the following sub-heads:

(i) For Loss of Income - Rs. 3,06,000.00

(ii) For Loss of Consortium - Rs. 25,000.00

(iii) For Loss of Love

and Affection - Rs. 15,000.00

(iv) For Funeral Expenses - Rs. 10,000.00

---------------

Total - Rs. 3,56,000.00

---------------

The pith and marrow of the facts as stood exposited from the memorandum of appeal would run thus:

Two vehicles are involved in the accident, one was the appellant''s bus and another was the auto rickshaw. While the bus was proceeding from

north to south on the Cavery bridge at Trichy, the auto rickshaw was proceeding from south to north. As such, the Tribunal has not taken into

account the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased auto driver in inviting the accident. The compensation awarded is on the higher

side.

The point for consideration are:

(i) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased auto driver?

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper?

Point No:(i)

The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the conductor of the bus who was examined as R.W.2, detailed and delineated that

three auto rickshaws were indulging in racing with one another on the Cavery bridge and in that process alone, the accident resulted. Whereas the

learned Counsel for the claimants would submit that the sketch prepared by the police and marked as Ex.B.1, would speak by itself that at the

relevant time of the accident, the bus instead of proceeding along the eastern half of the road, was virtually proceeding on the western portion of

the road from north to south and as such, the driver of the auto cannot be fastened with any responsibility, much less contributory negligence.

The perusal of Ex.B.1 coupled with the evidence of R.W.1, the deposition of the Sub Inspector of Police, would clearly demonstrate that at the

time of the accident, the bus was on the wrong side of the road. The bus which was proceeding from north side, was expected to be on the eastern

side of the road, but the bus was actually on the western side of the road. The auto was proceeding correctly by adhering to its left side. The

sketch also would clearly highlight that the width of the bridge was 60 ft and at the time of the accident, the bus was 38 ft away from the eastern

extreme. Whereas the auto was on the western side of the road as it was proceeding at the time of the accident, from south to north. In the

absence of evidence of the bus driver, it is clear that the driver of the bus was at fault and there is no reason to fasten any responsibility on the

deceased auto driver. Accordingly, the Tribunal has correctly considered all these aspects and arrived at the conclusion.

Point No:(ii)

The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that during the year 1999 so to say, in the year of the accident, the auto driver could not

have earned a sum of Rs. 2,250/- per mensum as assessed by the Tribunal. Whereas the learned Counsel for the claimants would submit that

during the year 1999, the auto drivers were earning even Rs. 3,000/- and above per month. However, the Tribunal had chosen only a moderate

amount to wit, Rs. 2,250/- as monthly income of the deceased and from that amount, 1/3rd amount was deducted towards expenses which the

deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive.

I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal correctly assessed the monthly income of the auto driver at Rs. 2,250/- and there is no reason

to vary that amount. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and

affection as there were three other claimants viz, one minor child of the deceased and the parents of the deceased and the compensation awarded

under those sub-heads could be confirmed as such and there is nothing to find fault with them. Towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs. 10,000/-

was awarded which is on the higher side. However, no compensation was awarded towards transport expenses. Hence, the said sum of Rs.

10,000/- could be allotted towards funeral expenses as well as transport expenses. As such, there is no variation in the ultimate total compensation

arrived at by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I am of the view that the award could be confirmed without any interference subject to modifying the order

relating to the rate of interest. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest whereas it could be only 7.5% as per the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court

in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, . Accordingly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from

9% to 7.5%.

In the result, this appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.