The main legal point established is that the driver's responsibility for a road accident and the determination of reasonable compensation are crucial factors in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Trichirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2011 dated 26.03.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Trichirappalli.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the petitioners in the claim petition. The respondents herein have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2011, claiming compensation for the death of one Kathirvel, in an accident that took place on 01.08.2010. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,97,620/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2011 is as follows:

On 01.08.2010, when the deceased was working as a Conductor in a bus bearing registration No.TN-45-N-2937, due to heavy traffic, the bus was stopped. The deceased got down from the bus to inquire the reason for the traffic. At that time, another bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-4789 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from behind. The deceased was taken to Salem Government hospital and then he was admitted in Salem Vinayaka Mission hospital and died on 02.08.2010. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent therein is as follows:

The accident did not happen as narrated in the petition. The respondent bus driver is not responsible for the accident. The respondent bus driver was following the ongoing vehicles. It was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road from right to left without adhering to the traffic and he dashed against the front side bumper of the bus and he invited the accident. The age, income, expenditure are to be proved.

5. On the side of the claimants, 12 witnesses were examined and three documents were marked. On the side of the respondent therein, one witness was examined and no document was marked and three Court documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,96,300/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation to be paid by the respondent therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal has failed to consider that it was not the driver of the appellant bus, who is responsible for the accident. It was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road without noticing the upcoming vehicle and he invited the accident. The Tribunal is wrong in awarding Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection and separately awarding Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for loss of consortium. The Tribunal is wrong in awarding Rs. 32,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards medical expenses. The award amount is excessive.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that it was the deceased who invited the accident by suddenly crossing the road without observing the upcoming vehicle. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the FIR is against appellant driver and that P.W.2 was examined as eye witness. P.W.2 has deposed that the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant driver. Rough sketch was marked as Ex.P12 and that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased.

7. A perusal of the records reveals that the appellant bus came from behind the bus wherein the deceased was working as the con