The main legal point established is the determination of negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the reasonableness of compensation awarded based on the deceased's income and personal expenses.

JUDGMENT :

R. THARANI, J.

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 167 of 2016, dated 22.12.2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P. No. 167 of 2016, dated 22.12.2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the first respondent and the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the respondents 5 and 6 herein are the respondents 2 and 3 in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 167 of 2016, is as follows:

The deceased was working as a driver in the second respondent-lorry bearing Registration No. TN-69-F-0365. He was earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. On 21.11.2015, at about 4.00 a.m. when the lorry was near Kasavanur Vilakku, along the Madurai to Trichy main road, the tyre of the lorry got punctured. The deceased got down from the lorry and he was making arrangement for changing the lorry tyre. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-5081 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the stationed lorry. The deceased and the driver of the bus and some passengers sustained severe injuries. The deceased-Sivakumar was taken to Trichy Government Hospital and he died at about 11.45 a.m. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased-Sivakumar and they claimed a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 167 of 2016, is as follows:

The driver of the first respondent drove the vehicle in a careful and cautious manner along the left side of the side. It was the deceased, who suddenly stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road, without giving any signal. The first respondent driver tried to stop the bus, even though he applied the sudden brake, the bus was dragged and dashed against the lorry. The age, income and avocation of the deceased are denied. Legal Heirs Certificate was not filed on the side of the claimants. The petition is to be dismissed.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 167 of 2016, is as follows: The facts of the petition are all denied. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. A criminal case was registered as against the bus driver. The respondents 2 and 3 are only formal parties. It is the duty of the petitioners/ claimants to prove that the lorry driver was having valid licence and that the lorry was properly insured.

5. On the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 1 witness was examined and no document was marked. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,17,500/- to be paid by the Transport Corporation.

6. Against the order, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- The Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the appellant was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the negligence on the lorry driver. The total compensation award fixed by the Tribunal is too excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs. 13,000/- which is very excessive. In addition to that the Tribunal has added 25% towards future prospects.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no possibility of the deceased to have taken steps to change the tyre of the lorry. The claimants failed to produce the rough sketch, observation mahazer, to prove the manner of the accident. At least contributory negligence is to be fixed on the deceased.

8. On the side of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, it is stated that it is wrong to state that the lorry was stopped on the middle of the road.