The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the principles established in the Pranay Sethi's Case to determine compensation for fatal accidents involving vehicles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2011, dated 23.01.2013.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2011, dated 23.01.2013. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondent herein are the respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2011, is as follows:-

On 22.11.2009, at about, 0615 p.m., when the first petitioner and her husband-Kutti @ Paramasivam were boarding a bus bearing Registration No.TN-67- N-0256, near Rajapalayam New bus stand, with two other persons, before the deceased boarding the bus, the driver of the bus moved the vehicle in a negligent manner and the deceased sustained injuries. He was admitted in Rajapalayam Government Hospital, then, he was admitted in Madurai Rajaji Hospital and he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He was aged about 24 years. The petitioners are his dependants and they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2011, is as follows:

The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The driver of the bus take a drip from the bus stand. When the bus was getting out from the bus stand in a slow manner, the deceased in a drunken mood, get down from running the bus and he sustained injuries. The death was not due to the rash or negligent act of the bus driver. The age, income and profession are all denied. A false case was registered against the driver of the bus. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

4. One witness was examined and 9 documents were marked, on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined and 2 documents were marked, on the side of the respondent. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,16,000/- as compensation.

5. Against the order, the claimants / appellants have filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low. The Tribunal failed to consider that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is only 24 years. He was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.4,500/-, which is very low. The Tribunal adopted multiplier ''17'' instead of ''18''. The Tribunal failed to award Rs.50,000/- for each of claimants towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium for the first claimant.

6. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the driver of the bus was examined on the side of the respondent. The respondent failed to prove that it was the deceased, who fell down in a drunken mood. The respondent already deposited the award amount, the appellants already withdrawn 50% of the award amount. There is no appeal filed by the transport corporation and hence, there is no question of liability.

7. P.W.1 was examined as the claimant and as the eye witness. Copy of F.I.R was marked as Ex.P1. Rough Sketch was marked as Ex.P2. Observation Mahazer was marked as Ex.P3. M.V.I.report was marked as Ex.P4. Copy of charge sheet was marked as Ex.P5. The driver of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1. A petition to quash the F.I.R was marked as Ex.R1. A.I.R copy was marked as Ex.R2. In the counter of the respondent, before the Tribunal, it is stated that in Ex.R2, there was a specific mentioning as to the drunken condition of the deceased.

8. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to P5, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the bus driver. It is seen that Ex.R2 was not marked through a Doctor.