Point of Law: Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs as assessed by the Tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited if any to credit of MCOP

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam (in the court of Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Tindivanam in MCOP.No.653/2010 dated 09.07.2014.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Tindivanam) in MCOP.No.653 of 2010.

2. Heard Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The Appellant has challenged the impugned award questioning its liability as well as questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent/claimant. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the Appellant Transport Corporation to pay the respondent/claimant a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:

4. Insofar as the first contention raised by the Appellant Transport Corporation that they are not liable for the cause of the accident is concerned, the same has been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal under the impugned award.

5. FIR (Ex.A1) has been registered only against the driver of the Appellant Transport Corporation. The case of the respondent/claimant as seen from the FIR as well as from the pleadings is that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by the Appellant Transport Corporation on 12.06.2010, the said bus dashed against him while he was waiting in the bus stand.

6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant has filed 23 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 and two witnesses were examined on his side namely, the respondent/claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor who examined him as PW2. On the side of the Appellant Transport Corporation, one witness was examined as RW1, but no document was filed.

7. No contra evidence has also been produced by the Appellant Transport Corporation before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of the respondent/claimant that only due to the fault of the driver of the bus, the accident had happened. The Tribunal after giving due consideration to the materials and evidence available on record has come to the right conclusion that the Appellant Transport Corporation is liable to compensate the claim of the respondent/claimant on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of their bus. Hence, the first contention of the Appellant Transport Corporation questioning their liability is rejected by this Court.

8. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of the respondent/claimant as Rs.4,500/-, eventhough the respondent/claimant in his claim petition has pleaded that he was a salesman and an agriculturist, earning Rs.7,000/- per month at the time of the accident. The accident happened in the year 2010 and after giving due consideration to the year of the accident, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment of notional monthly income of the respondent/claimant at Rs.4,500/- by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Transport Corporation. Hence this court is of the considered view that the assessment of Rs.4,500/- as the notional monthly income of the respondent/claimant at the time of the accident is a correct assessment.

9. The Doctor P