Tribunal's determination of responsibility for accident and calculation of compensation upheld

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2012 dated 17.01.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Padmanathapuram.)

1. This appeal is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2012 dated 17.01.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Padmanathapuram. The appellant herein is the second respondent. The respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants. The fifth respondent is the first respondent in the claim petition. The sixth respondent is the third respondent in the claim petition.

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

On 28.07.2012 in the early morning, the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration number TN 75 B 9796 along the Marthandam to Nagercoil main road with one Selvan as pillion rider. When they were nearing CSI church, a bus bearing registration number TN 01 N 7786 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came along the right side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. Both the rider and the pillion rider sustained injuries. The rider of the two wheeler George Vincent took first aid in Issac Hospital and then he was taken to Tiruvanandapuram- Ananthapuri Hospital and he succumbed to the injuries on 01.08.2012. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased and they claimed Rs.13 Lakhs as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in the claim petition, is as follows:

The manner of accident is denied. The bus driver drove the vehicle in a slow, careful and cautious manner. It was the deceased who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right front side of the bus. The first respondent/ the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The deceased was not having valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. The age, profession and income of the deceased are all denied.

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

The claimant did not claim any compensation from this respondent. The third respondent is an unnecessary party. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Only the first and second respondents are liable to pay compensation. The claim is excessive.

5. Two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked on the side of the appellant. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,58,300/- as compensation to be paid by the second respondent.

6. Against the awarded amount, 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. It was the two wheeler which came in the wrong side, dashed against the bus. The deceased invited the accident and the deceased was responsible for the accident. The award of Rs.20,58,300/- is excessive. The Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- and the Tribunal is wrong in deducting 1/4 of the income towards personal expenditure. Adopting multiplier 11 is wrong. The award of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium are too high. Awarding Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.6,300/- towards ambulance charges, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, are all too high.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 53 years as fixed by the Tribunal. The rider of the two wheeler was not having valid driving license and contributory negligence to be fixed on the deceased. The deceased was about to retire o