The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from relevant Supreme Court cases to determine the liability of the bus driver and the calculation of compensation in fatal accident cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal, set aside the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010 dated 15.11.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. The appellant is the second respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants. Respondents 3 to 5 herein are the respondents 1,3 and 4 in the original claim petition.

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

On 18.07.2010 at about 10.50 pm., the deceased was riding a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 30 AC 5402 in a slow and cautious manner and at that time, a bus bearing registration number TN 01 N 6665 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the rear side of the two wheeler. The deceased died on the spot. The age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of accident. He was working as an Engineer in Bharath Inspection Service, Trichy. He was earning Rs.17,000/- per month. He got employment abroad for a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Claimants are his dependants. They claim Rs.1 Crore as compensation.

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

The bus was driven by its driver in a careful and cautious manner. The respondent driver is not responsible for the accident. There is no damages in the front portion of the bus. The deceased met with an accident in some other vehicle and a complaint was wrongly lodged against the respondent bus.

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

The Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to try the case. The claimants are not the legal representatives of the deceased. The petitioners are liable to prove the age, income and profession of the deceased. The fourth respondent is not a necessary party.

5. On the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked. One witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,46,000/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the appellant has approached this Court by way of an 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 failed to note that the appellant bus was never involved in the alleged accident. The motor vehicle inspection report reveals that there was no such damage on the front portion of the appellant bus. The Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier 18 which is high. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,46,000/- which is excessive.

7. The driver of the vehicle was not examined on the side of the respondent. On the side of the claimant, it is stated that since the driver of the vehicle was suspended, the conductor gave evidence on the side of the first respondent. The First Information Report was registered against the first respondent. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 eye witness and on the evidence of Ex.P1, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, it is decided that the bus driver is responsible for the accident.

8. On the side of the appellant it is stated that the second claimant was aged about 24 years at the time of filing of the petition. No document was filed to prove that the second claimant was only a student, at the time of accident. He may be a earning member. The deceased and the second claimant are of the same age. There is no possibility of the second claimant to be the dependant of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Sup