Contributory negligence and determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicle Act, 1988, to allow this appeal, set aside the award made in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2021 dated 06.12.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram.)

1. This appeal is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram. The appellant herein is the respondent. The respondents in the appeal are the claimants in the original claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

On 28.03.2021, the deceased Ravi was travelling in a bus bearing registration number TN 63 N 1984. The driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased who was sitting on the last seat of the bus, was thrown away from the bus and he sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. Then he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Paramakudi, wherein he died. The petitioners are his brothers. They claim a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent is as follows:

The driver of the bus, drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. After crossing the toll gate near Vattanvalasai toll gate, the deceased suddenly raised from the seat without the knowledge of the driver or the conductor and he suddenly jumped out of the running bus and he wantonly invited the accident. The driver of the bus gave first aid to the injured person and sent him to the hospital for treatment. The accident was caused due to the carelessness and negligence of the deceased who jumped out of the running bus. The First Information Report was registered only under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to the careless act of the deceased and the further action was dropped. Since the driver of the respondent bus was not responsible for the accident, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. The claim is excessive and exaggerated one.

4. Two witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and one document was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,35,000/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal failed to fix the negligence on the deceased who jumped out of the running bus and the tribunal failed to consider that the First Information Report was closed by filing RCS. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- and added 25% towards future prospects and applied multiplier 13 which is excessive. The Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.15,60,000/- which is very excessive. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- each for two minors, towards loss of love and affection. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses which are all excessive.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased participated in fire walk function that was held in the temple on the previous night and without proper sleep and rest, he travelled in the appellant's bus. After the bus crossed the speed breaker and crossed the toll gate, he suddenly wake up from the sleep and he jumped out of the bus without the knowledge of the conductor and the driver. There is no possibility of a bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner while crossing the toll gate. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. R.W.1 has deposed that the accident took p