The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Tribunal to award reasonable and just compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the limitations on claiming enhanced compensation without modifying the original claim petition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, in M.C.O.P.No. 1222 of 2017, dated 20.08.2019.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, in M.C.O.P.No.1222 of 2017, dated 20.08.2019. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.1222 of 2017 , is as follows:-

On 05.05.2017, at about 9.00 am., when the deceased-Karthic was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-2320, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-AR-8889. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and he died. The petitioners are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No. 1222 of 2017, is as follows:-

The bus driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, observing the traffic rules and by keeping the extreme left side of the road, at that time, all of a sudden, an aged person try to cross the road and to avoid hitting the aged person, the driverof the bus turned the vehicle to the right side, a lorry was parked on the left side of the road, without any indicatory or road blocks, the driver of the bus applied a sudden brake, even then, the bus hit the lorry. The accident has happened only due to the driver of the lorry, who parked the vehicle, without any indicator. The age, income and profession of the deceased are all denied. The claim is excessive.

4. In the same accident, a person, by name, Manikandan sustained injuries and he filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.1858 of 2017, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. In both the cases, a joint trial was conducted and a common judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal.

5. In the joint trial, Two (2) witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. One (1) witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the claimants / appellants have filed this Appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has failed to note that even though the claimants are claiming lesser amount as compensation, it is the duty of the Tribunal to award a reasonable and just compensation. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and should have added 40% towards future prospects.

7. On the side of the appellants - claimants, it is stated that there is no appeal on the side of the respondent and the liability fixed by the Tribunal is to be confirmed. P.W.2 was examined as an eye witness. Copy of the F.I.R was marked as Ex.P1. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and considering Ex.P1 and considering the fact that the bus hit the lorry from behind, it is decided that the bus driver is responsible for the accident. Hence, it is decided that the respondent is liable to pay compensation.

8. On the side of the appellants - claimants, it is stated that the deceased was working as a Painter cum Pawn broker. The accident was of the year 2017, even in the Sayed Sadiq case, the income was fixed as Rs.6,500/- for an accident that happened in the year 2008, even this Court has passed an order fixing the income as Rs.9,000/- for a mason, who met with an accident in the year 2017. On the side of the respondent – Transport Corporation, it is stated that there is no evidence for the income of the deceased and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.

9. A perusa