The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence and calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2016, dated 02.04.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Madurai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2016, dated 02.04.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Madurai. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the claimant in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2016, is as follows:

On 08.03.2016, at about 02.30 pm., when the deceased – Ragul krishnan was travelling as pillion rider, in a two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-58-AF-6518, near Nagamalai Pudukkottai Cremation ground, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0626 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler from behind. The deceased sustained injuries, he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and he died on his way to the Hospital. The deceased was a Student, studying first year Degree course. He was a part time employee in C.M.Medical Star Institution and he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioners are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2016, is as follows:-

The bus was driven by its driver in a careful and cautious manner. It was the deceased, who drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. Three persons travelled in a two wheeler and the rider of the two wheeler could not control the vehicle. The rider was not having valid driving licence. The owner and the insurance company of the two wheeler are necessary parties to the case. The age and income of the deceased are to be proved.

4. Two (2) witnesses were examined, 10 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. One (1) witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,11,800/- as compensation and after deducting 30% (Rs.4,53,540/-) towards the contributory negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,58,260/- is awarded to the claimants..

5. Against the award, the respondent - appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the entire negligence on the appellant – Transport Corporation. It was the rider of the two wheeler, who was rash and negligent and he was not having a valid driving licence. The vehicle was driven with two pillion riders, which is against the motor vehicle Rules. The Tribunal wrongly fixed 70% responsiblity on the driver of the Corporation, which is wrong. Without any specific proof of income, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.9,000/-, which is excessive.

6. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards loss of articles, which are all excessive.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased travelled as a pillion rider, in a vehicle was driven by one-Muthukrishnan and that there was one more person travelled in the two wheeler. Three persons travelled in a two wheeler is against the motor vehicle Rules. Due to overspeed, one of the pillion riders fell down and he succumbed to the injuries. The rider was not having valid driving licence, but, the Tribunal is wrong in fixing 70% negligence on the part of the Corporation bus driver.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the rider and the pillion riders are all responsible for the accident. To s