Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1038
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
The Managing Director
Versus
Sumathi & Others
C.M.A.No.1629 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014
Decided on : 04-06-2014
For the Appellant :Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate.
The judgment emphasized the essential components of negligence and the standard of proof required in motor accident claims cases.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - 2005 (4) CTC 540 - The court discussed the concept of negligence and the distinction between criminal negligence and negligence in tort. It emphasized the essential components of negligence and the standard of proof required in motor accident claims cases. The court confirmed the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, citing the oral testimony of witnesses and other documents.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a fatal accident with a State Transport Corporation bus. The claimants sought compensation, alleging negligence on the part of the bus driver. The Claims Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, citing the oral testimony of witnesses and other documents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bus driver was negligent in causing the accident and if the awarded compensation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the essential components of negligence and the standard of proof required in motor accident claims cases. It also highlighted the distinction between criminal negligence and negligence in tort.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
1. In the accident, which occurred on 17.04.2000, one Sivakumar died. A case in Crime No.123 of 2000 has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-35N-0785, on the file of TIW(West) Police Station. According to the legal representatives, wife and parents, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and as a Computer Operator, earned Rs.4,000/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
2. It is the contention of the claimants that on 17.04.2000, about 03.10.PM, when the deceased was riding a motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-37R-5889, near Anna Tea Coffee Bar on Oppanakara Street, from South to North direction, the abovesaid Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-35N-0785, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the motor cyclist. The bus ran over his head and he died on the spot.
3. Opposing the claim, the Transport Corporation has contended that on that day, it was raining heavily. The bus was stopped at Oppanakara Street first bus stop. Due to rain, the road was full of dust and sand. At that time, the motor cyclist overtook a bus, lost his balance, fell down and became unconscious. Thus, they denied the manner of accident. Transport Corporation rebutted negligence attributed against its driver and their consequential liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation, income and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.
4. Before the Claims Tribunal, father of the deceased examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2 is the brother of the deceased and stated to be an eye witness. PW3 is an employee of Sivasankar Publications, in which the deceased was stated to have worked as a Computer Operator. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Charge sheet, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Reports, Ex.P.5-Rough Sketch, Ex.P.6-Post-mortem Report, Ex.P.7-Legal Heirship Certificate, Ex.P.8-School Leaving Certificate, Ex.P.9-Driving License, Ex.P.10-Salary Certificate and Ex.P.11-Day Book of Sivasankar Publications have been marked. RW1 is the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. Ex.R.1 is the copy of Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VIII, Coimbatore, in which the driver of the bus has been acquitted on benefit of doubt.
5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to negligence of RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation bus and quantified the compensation due and payable to the respondents/ claimants as Rs.5,76,000/- with interest @9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation.
6. Being aggrieved by the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the bus, bearing Registration No.TN-35N-0785 and the quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, without any proof. It is also his contention that the Claims Tribunal erred in applying 18' multiplier, for computing the loss of contribution to the family. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that the driver of the bus was acquitted of all the charges and hence, liability ought not to have been fastened on the Company, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission, for the reason that the oral testimony of PW1, father of the deceased is duly supported by PW2, eye witness and also corroborated by Ex.P.1-First Information Report and Ex.P.2-Charge Sheet.
7. Perusal of the award further shows that RW1, driver of the bus has been acquitted solely on the basis of benefit of doubt. Strict proof of evidence is not required like that of a criminal case. It is also well settled that adjudication of
