The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the application of legal principles to modify the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one N.Palani, who died in the accident that took place on 17.07.2014.

3. According to the respondents, on 17.07.2014 at around 16.15 hours, while the deceased N.Palani was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 73 Z 2436 along the Banavaram to Nemili Bye Pass road from Minnal to Salai, near Minnal Bungalow gate junction, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 2290, who was driving the bus from the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly turned to the right side without giving any signal endangering public safety, dashed on the motorcycle driven by the said N.Palani by the front bumper of the bus and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the said N.Palani was thrown out of the motorcycle and died on the way to Hospital. Hence, the respondents filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant.

4. The appellant filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents. According to appellant, on the date of accident, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a moderate speed on the left side Arakkonam to Velithakkipuram road, near Bungalow gate curve, he saw the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 73 Z 2436 coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner by crossing the centre median line. On seeing this, the driver of the bus slowed down the bus and stopped the bus on the left side mud portion of the road. Inspite of the same, the rider of the motorcycle who was riding the motorcycle at a high speed, on seeing the bus, could not control the motorcycle and dashed on the centre portion of the front bumper of the bus, invited the accident and died on the spot. Hence, the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. The respondents have not impleaded the insurer of the motorcycle driven by the deceased as they are necessary party in the claim petition. The respondents have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Rajamani, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.25,43,000/- as compensation to the respondents.

7. To set aside the said award dated 13.03.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant