Principles to be followed while awarding compensation.

A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.

Being aggrieved by the order, dated 110. 1990 made in O.P.No.428 of 1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, the appellant viz., the Union of India, represented by its Commanding Officer, Military Police, H. East Quarters, Ist George Gate, Fort St.George,Madras-9 has preferred the present appeal.

2. Therespondents in this appeal who are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.428 of 1988 have filed cross-objections, praying enhanced compensation in this appeal and that has been taken on file as cross-objection No.156 of 1992.

3. 211. 1987 was the fateful and unfortunate day for one Thangakumar, who was a doctor by profession on that day. On that day, he was driving his Scooter, TNW.2605 on the Kamaraj Road from south to north at 8.55 a.m. and in fact, at the relevant point of time he was crossing the Napier Bridge from south to north. According to the claimants, the doctor was driving the scooter keeping to the left and a jeep belonging to the appellant bearing Registration No.82-B 233395E which was driven in a rash and negligent manner crossed the central line, came to the wrong lane and dashed against the scooter resulting in his death due to the injuries sustained to his neck. It is the further case of the respondents/claimants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 29 years and he left behind his wife aged about 27 years, two minor daughters aged 1 1/2 years and 3 months respectively and his mother, Rajalakshmi, aged about 60 years. The claimants would further submit that the deceased Thangakumar was a Doctor and he had a brilliant academic career and after completing his Post Graduate course, he was studying M.Ch. course. It is the specific case of the claimants that he was serving as a Medical Officer in the Tamil Nadu Government Hospital and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2,174. Besides that he was working in the evenings in a private nursing home at Adayar, Chennai and was getting a remuneration of Rs.3,000 per month. Thus, in all he was earning a total sum of Rs.5,174. On this basis, the respondents claimed a total compensation at Rs.15 lakhs.

4. The appellant resisted the claim inter alia contending that the accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased Thangakumar, who was at the relevant time driving his scooter in a rash and negligent manner, violating the traffic rules and regulations. According to the appellant, the driver of the jeep was proceeding near the Napier bridge from north to south direction at a very low speed behind a PTC. bus, which was going in front of the said jeep at a distance of 20 ft. and from the opposite side another Pallavan transport bus was coming at a moderate speed and at that time, a car bearing Registration No.TMP.9666 was also coming from south to north but at a very high speed behind the Pallavan Transport Bus and the driver of the car tried to overtake the PTC. bus, which was proceeding before it. Similarly, the Scooter which was driven by the victim came behind the said car attempted to overtake the car, and while doing so, in order to avoid dashing against the PTC. bus, the scooterist lost control and turned the scooter towards the left hand side and dashed against the right front wheel of the car and as a result of which he was thrown out of the scooter and died. A specific plea is taken in the counter statement saying that inasmuch as the owner of the car in question, viz., TMP.No.9666 has not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings, this petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the question of quantum, it is stated in the petition that the compensation claimed is on the higher side.

5. Thetribunal framed the following two issues for consideration on the basis of the pleadings:

.• 1. Whether the plea of the petitioners that only because of the negligence of the driver of the military jeep belonging to the appellant, the accident occurred, is