The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor accident case, the assessment of the deceased's income, and the calculation of compensation, including future prospects and loss of love and affection.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur.)

This Cross objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22(1) of C.P.C., against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur.)

Common Judgment:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur. The appellant herein is the Transport Corporation and the respondents herein are the claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Cross Objection has been filed to enhance the the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondent herein is the Transport Corporation in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, is as follows:

On 11.03.2018, at about 11.15 pm., while the deceased -Kalimuthu was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-47- AV-0550 along the Karur – Erode main road, near Athur sub road, in front of Deepam Store, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-63-N-1723 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler. He was taken to Karur Apollo hospital after getting first aid, he was shifted to Kovial K.M.C. Hospital, where, he died on 14.03.2018. He was aged about 23 years and was working as a car driver and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as salary, in addition to the batta. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No. 290 of 2018, is as follows:

It was the rider of the two wheeler, who suddenly turned the vehicle to the right side. On seeing the same, the bus driver took the bus to the mud portion of the road, but, the rider of the two wheeler lost his balance and dashed against the front bumper portion of the bus and he invited the accident. The Insurer of the two wheeler is a necessary party to the case. The age, avocation and income of the deceased are all denied. The claim is exorbitant.

5. On the side of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, 1 witness was examined and no document was marked. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,47,869/- as compensation.

6. Against the order, the respondent / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the entire liability on the appellant. It was the friend of the deceased, who drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. Only on the ground that there was no independent evidence on the side of Corporation, the Tribunal has awarded a huge sum as compensation. The claimants have failed to establish the monthly salary, but, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly salary as Rs.11,000/-, which is excessive.

7. Brief substance of the cross objection filed by the claimants is as follows:-

7.1. The Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal only on the ground that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence, but the Transport Corporation has failed to examine the concerned police officer, who investigated the criminal case. The Transport Corporation has examined only one witness as R.W.1, who was a worker of the Transport Corporation and his evidence is not reliable.

7.2. The deceased was working as a driver. He was having valid driving licence. The driving licence of the deceased was marked as Ex.P7. But,