The court emphasized the assessment of negligence and compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the contravention of the Act by the minor appellant and the erroneous assessment of notional income and disability for compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.

2. The minor appellant-claimant, represented by her father Ganesan, filed M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 18.08.2015.

3. According to the minor appellant, on 18.08.2015, at about 8.30 p.m, while she was riding in a Honda Activa bearing Registration No.TN-59-S- 1906 in front of Veterinary Medical College Hospital, Veppery Main Road, Chennai, from West to East, the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-8487, owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation, coming from East to West in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the Honda Activa which the appellant was riding and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and lost her right vision and filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her.

4. The respondent-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied the entire averments in the claim petition and submitted that on the date of accident viz., 18.08.2015, at about 8.30 p.m, the driver of the Bus stopped the vehicle at Veterinary Hospital Bus Stop for the passengers to alight and board the Bus. When the driver of the Bus started the Bus, the appellant, who was a minor, without holding driving license, drove the Honda Activa in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and dashed in front of the Bus. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the minor appellant. The father of the appellant lodged the complaint based on hear say evidence and hence, the respondent denied paying compensation to the appellant.

5. Before the Tribunal, the father of the minor appellant was examined as P.W.1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the respondent-Transport Corporation, the driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1, but did not mark any document.

6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that both the driver of the Bus as well as the minor appellant contributed to the accident and fixed 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus and 25% negligence on the minor appellant. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.18,66,000/- as compensation to the appellant and directed the respondent-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.13,99,500/- being 75% of the compensation to the appellant.

7. Questioning the 25% negligence fixed on the minor appellant and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the minor appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing 25% negligence on the part of the appellant. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation. FIR was registered only against the driver of the respondent. The Tribunal erred in fixing 25% negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligence on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was a minor College Student. The Tribunal erred in fixing only a sum of Rs.25,000/- as notional income of the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have fixed more amount as notional income, taking into consideration the educational qualification of the appellant. The Tribunal failed t