AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 25.02.1999 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 456 of
1998 by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (IIIrd Additional Sub Judge), Trichy, directing the appellant/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents/claimants along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till realisation
and cost, for the death of their mother, due to the injuries sustained in an alleged accident that took place on 26.07.1997 at about 07.30 p.m.
The facts leading to the filing of the appeal can briefly be stated thus:
Muthu, the first respondent herein is the son and Meenakshi, the second respondent herein is the daughter of the deceased Chinnaathal, wife of
Chinnakkannu who pre-deceased her. The above said Chinnaathal on 26.07.1997, in the evening hours, travelled in the bus belonging to the
appellant/respondent with the number plate bearing registration No. TN-45-1106, from Trichy to Manapparai. At about 07.30 p.m. while getting
down from the said bus at Manapparai bus stand, she met with an accident and later on succumbed to injuries. Making allegations to the effect that
after the bus entered in Manapparai bus stand and came to a halt, the deceased Chinnaathal tried to get down through the entrance on the front
side; that while she was thus alighting from the bus and before ever she could safely land on the ground, the driver of the said bus moved it
suddenly; that the driver of the said bus did it disregarding the warning signal given by the conductor and unmindful of the safety of the passenger
who was getting down from the bus; that due to the above said negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus, the deceased Chinnaathal fell
down and got trapped under the rear wheel of the bus; that the left side rear wheel ran over both of her legs causing grievous injuries, which later
on proved to be fatal and that the deceased Chinnaathal who was taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy, after having first aid treatment at
Manapparai Government Hospital, later on died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident; that a case was registered in Crime No. 328 of
1997 on the file of Manapparai Police Station against the driver of the bus initially for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC which
was subsequently altered into a case for an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC and that the appellant Transport Corporation, being the owner of the
bus and employer of the driver, should be held liable to pay compensation to the respondent/claimants, who are the legal representatives of the
deceased. With the further allegation that the deceased Chinnaathal, at the time of her death, was aged about 55 years and was having a daily
income of Rs. 50/- as an agricultural coolie, the respondents/claimants filed the above said M.C.O.P. under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Additional Sub Judge), Trichy praying for an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- as
compensation against the appellant Transport Corporation. In support of their claim, the claimants have examined two witnesses and relied on two
documents marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2.
The above said claim of the respondents/claimants was resisted before the Tribunal by the appellant Transport Corporation by filing a counter
statement, denying the petition averments regarding the manner in which the accident took place, the age, occupation and income of the deceased
Chinnaathal and the reasonableness of the amount claimed as compensation. Contending further that the accident was the result of negligence on
the part of the deceased; that when the bus was proceeding slowly after reaching Manapparai bus stand to be parked at the place allotted, the
deceased Chinnaathal tried to get down from the moving bus and fell down in her attempt; that disregarding the warning made to the passengers by
the conductor of the bus to get down from the bus only after it came to a halt, the deceased attempted to get down from the moving bus and fell
down; that the same became the cause for the said accident and that neither the driver nor the conductor was responsible for the accident, the
appellant Transport Corporation prayed for the rejection of the claim of the respondents/claimants for compensation on the basis of their plea that
the driver had acted with the negligence and caused the accident. With the further contention that the respondents/claimants were not the
dependants of the deceased, the appellant Transport Corporation, in its counter statement, had prayed for the outright dismissal of M.C.O.P. with
costs. In support of the defence case of the appellant/respondent, only one witness was examined and one document was marked as Ex.B.1.
The Tribunal, after completion of recording evidence, heard the arguments advanced on both sides, framed the necessary questions for
determination, considered the records brought forth and came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus acted with rashness and negligence in
driving the bus and that the same had led to the accident in which the mother of the claimants sustained injuries leading to her subsequent death.
The Tribunal also held that the appellant/respondent, as the owner of the offending vehicle, was liable to pay compensation to the
respondents/claimants and awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the
date of claim till realisation and proportionate litigation costs.
Aggrieved by the same and challenging the award of the Tribunal, the appellant Transport Corporation has brought forth this appeal u/s 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
This Court heard the arguments advanced on both sides and paid its anxious considerations to the same.
It is a fact not in controversy that Chinnaathal, the mother of the respondents/claimants travelled in the bus belonging to the appellant Transport
Corporation on 26.07.1997 and she had to get down at Manapparai; that at about 07.30 p.m. after the said bus entered Manapparai bus stand,
while alighting from the said bus through its front entrance, she fell down and got trapped under the left side rear wheel of the bus and that in fact,
the left side rear wheel of the bus ran over both of her legs causing serious injuries which subsequently proved to be fatal. It is the specific
contention of the respondents/claimants that the deceased Chinnaathal tried to get down from the bus only after the bus came to a halt and that
disregarding the warning signal of the conductor and without caring for the safety of the passenger who was in the process of getting down from the
bus, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the same and that as a result of the above said negligent act on the part of the driver, the accident in
question took place. On the other hand, the appellant Transport Corporation seems to have contended before the Tribunal that before ever the bus
came to a halt, the deceased, in her anxiety to get down from the bus made such an attempt while the bus was still on the move and that she made
such an attempt disregarding the warning given by the conductor to the passengers generally not to get down before the bus came to a halt. So the
point in controversy is: ""Whether the deceased Chinnaathal was in the process of getting down from the bus after the same had come to a halt or
she made an attempt to get down from the moving bus before ever it came to a halt?"".
In this regard, the respondents/claimants have relied on the oral testimony of P.W.2-Rajan, an eye witness to the occurrence. The evidence of
P.W.2 inspires the confidence of the Court, as the same is cogent, natural and without contradiction. It is the clear testimony of P.W.2 that on
26.07.1997 at about 07.30 p.m. he was present in the scene of occurrence; that the bus bearing registration No. TN-45-1106, on its trip from
Trichy to Palani, came to the bus stand and was dropping the passengers; that at that point of time even before the conductor blew his whistle, the
driver of the bus moved it; that a woman aged about 55 years, who was in the process of getting down from the bus through its front entrance, fell
down and that the left side rear wheel of the bus ran over her in which both of her legs got crushed. P.W.2 is an independent witness and there is
no reason, whatsoever, to disbelieve him and keep his evidence out of consideration. The testimony of P.W.2 regarding the nature of accident
stands fully corroborated by the documentary evidence, viz., Ex.A.1 - copy of the First Information Report. From Ex.A.1, it is obvious that a
criminal case was registered based on the complaint of the deceased Chinnaathal recorded by the police at Government Hospital, Trichy on
intimation from the said hospital regarding her admission. The contents of the First Information Report fully support the case of the
respondents/claimants that the deceased was getting down from the bus only after the bus had stopped and that while she was in the process of
alighting from the bus and before ever she could safely land on the ground, the driver of the bus moved it even without receiving the green signal
from the conductor.
On the other hand, the evidence of the driver of the bus involved in the accident, examined as R.W.1, does not inspire the confidence of the
Court and the Tribunal has rightly rejected his evidence and preferred the evidence of P.W.2. R.W.1 would state that the deceased Chinnaathal
tried to get down from the moving bus and invited the accident due to her own act of negligence. In support of his oral testimony, Ex.B.1 - copy of
the Judgment pronounced in the criminal case registered against R.W.1 has been produced. It is a well settled principle that the Judgment of the
Criminal Court in a criminal case registered regarding the accident is not binding on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and that the same is not
relevant in a motor accident claims cases, except to the extent of proving that there was a Judgment of the criminal Court which ended in either
conviction or acquittal. There is one exception for the above said proposition. When the criminal Court has convicted the accused based on the
plea of guilty, the same becomes admissible not because it is the Judgment of the criminal Court but as a fact admitted in the criminal proceeding.
Even the facts admitted in the criminal proceedings are not conclusive proof of the same but are rebutable. That being so, the mere fact that the
driver of the bus, viz., R.W.1 has been acquitted in the criminal case, as seen from Ex.B.1, will not be enough to disprove the case of the
respondents/claimants and prove the case of the appellant Transport Corporation regarding the negligence aspect. There may be umpty number of
reasons for a criminal case ending in acquittal. Simply because an accused in a road accident case has been acquitted by the criminal Court, one
can come to a conclusion that there was no negligence on his part. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the acquittal of R.W.1 in the accident
case was not an honourable acquittal and that he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The Tribunal, after a thorough scrutiny and proper
appreciation of evidence adduced on both sides, has come to a correct conclusion that the deceased Chinnaathal was in the process of getting
from the bus only after the bus came to a halt in the bus stand; that only due to the negligent act of the driver of the bus in moving the same before
ever the deceased could safely land on the ground, the accident took place and that hence the appellant Transport Corporation should be mulcted
with the liability based on the theory of fault. There is no error or infirmity in the above said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this
Court in this civil miscellaneous appeal and the same has got to be confirmed.
The next contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondents/claimants were not the dependants of the deceased does not deserve
acceptance for the simple reason that the married sons and daughters cannot be excluded from the category of dependants. In fact, they become
entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased, as they come under the category of legal representatives. In fact, in this case, as the
deceased had already lost her husband, the contention of the respondents/claimants that they were not only depending upon the income of the
deceased but also actually deriving benefits from the income of the deceased cannot be rejected. Under these circumstances, this Court comes to a
conclusion that the resistance offered by the appellant Transport Corporation to the claim made by the respondents/claimants has got to be
discountenanced.
On the question of quantum, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of accident and awarded a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- as compensation without giving any details of assessment. This part of the award is sought to be challenged by the appellant Transport
Corporation, contending that the said amount is excessive and without adopting the proper procedure of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal
arbitrarily fixed the amount and hence liable to be interfered with in this appeal by this Court. Of course, it is true that the Tribunal has not adopted
any specific method of assessing compensation and has chosen to award a lump sum as compensation. The learned Counsel for the
respondents/claimants contends that if a proper method of assessment of compensation is adopted by this Court, the said amount can be held
representing a reasonable compensation for the death of the mother of the claimants. The age of the deceased is noted to be 60 years in Ex.A.2
post mortem certificate. Whether she had completed the age of 60 years or she had completed the age of 59 years and was running 60th year of
her age has not been clarified. This Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants that the illiterate
rustics use to tell the age of a person not in completed years but denoting the running age and that if the said aspect is taken into consideration, the
age of the deceased could be fixed at 59 years. Accepting the above said contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants, this
Court comes to a conclusion that the deceased had completed the age of 59 years, but had not completed the age of 60 years. Hence the
appropriate multiplier to be selected in this case shall be ''8''.
Though the claimants have averred in their petition that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and was having a daily income of Rs. 50/-,
P.W.1 seems to have exaggerated the same and chosen to state in her evidence that the deceased was having an income at the rate of Rs. 75/- per
day. The said evidence of P.W.1 has got to be rejected. On the other hand, the contention that the deceased was an agricultural coolie remains
proved. There is no other evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Hence in this case, it shall be appropriate to adopt the notional income of
Rs. 15,000/- as the income of the deceased. Deducting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- representing 1/3 of the income of the deceased for expenses for
personal maintenance, the dependency of the respondents/claimants who are the son and daughter of the deceased Chinnaathal, can be assessed
at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. If the said amount is multiplied by the selected multiplier, we can get the figure at Rs. 80,000/-, representing
compensation for the loss of dependency occasioned to the respondents/claimants. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- can be awarded for funeral expenses.
Another sum of Rs. 5,000/- can be awarded for loss of love and affection occasioned to the claimants due to the death of their mother. Since the
death was not instantaneous and the deceased survived for about three months and only thereafter died on failure of medical treatment, during the
said period she might have undergone immense pain and suffering, for which, a reasonable amount could be awarded as compensation. This Court
is of the considered view that awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the same shall be quite reasonable. Considering the age of the deceased, no
amount need by awarded towards loss of expectation of life. All the above said amounts put together will make a grand total of Rs. 1,00,000/-
which is equal to the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded as compensation by the Tribunal
can be termed reasonable and not otherwise. There is no scope for interference with the award of the Tribunal regarding the quantum also. The
award of the Tribunal is not infirm or erroneous. The same deserves to be confirmed and the appeal must fail. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous
is dismissed with costs.