Proper evidence is essential to establish contributory negligence and dependency in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 24.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Madurai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, dated 24.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Special District Court, Madurai. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the fifth respondent is the first respondent in the original claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, is as follows:-

On 13.12.2012, at about 05.45 pm., when the deceased – Mayandithevar, was walking near Suliochanpatti Library, a School Bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-U-4348 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and he died on the spot. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, is as follows:-

The school bus was driven by its driver in a slow and cautious manner. While the bus was turning, the deceased, who was sitting, tried to get up and he lost his balance and fell down and sustained injuries. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was valid. The age, profession, income of the deceased are to be proved.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, is as follows:-

The manner of accident is denied. The driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The deceased was responsible for the accident. The age, profession, income of the deceased are all denied. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claim is excessive.

5. On the side of the petitioners, 1 witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 1 witness was examined and 3 documents were marked. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the appellant approached this Court by way of this appeal, on the following grounds:

The Tribunal failed to consider that the age of the deceased was more than 72 years and he was not able to hear. It was the deceased, who crossed the road without observing the upcoming vehicle. The Tribunal failed to consider that the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, which is excessive. The Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- towards parental consortium, Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that when the school bus was taken in the reverse mode, due to deafness, the deceased failed to note the bus and met with an accident. There is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and atleast 50% contributory negligence is to be fixed.

8. On the side of the respondents 1 to 4 /claimants, it is stated that P.W.1 himself was examined as an eyewitness before the criminal Court. F.I.R and charge sheet were against the driver of the bus and that acquittal of the driver in the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal.

9. To substantiate this claim, a judgment of this Court in CMA.(MD)No. 773 of 2013 (Nagammal V. Muthiraiyan), dated 24.09.2018, is cited on the side of the respondent, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

“9. It is well settled law that proceedings before the Claims Tribunalare summary in nature and it is suffice to consider, whether there is any preponderance of probability, as to the manner of accident, as detailed in the claim petition. Strict proof of evidence is not required. In this case, it is not in dispute that the deat