The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal parameters set by the Supreme Court in determining compensation for fatal accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Valliyoor dated 10.03.2020.)

L.Victoria Gowri, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in M.C.O.P No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valliyoor dated 10.03.2020 seeking to set aside the impugned award passed in the said M.C.O.P on the file of the said Tribunal.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is briefly stated as under:

(i) The appellant in this appeal is the first respondent - Transport Corporation, wherein the deceased, namely, one Mr.Thomas served as conductor. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. The fourth respondent is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the fifth respondent is the Insurance Company.

(ii) On 06.04.2016 at about 03.00 a.m., when the deceased Mr.Thomas was in duty in a Transport Bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 AN 0128 belonging to the Appellant – Corporation, the driver of the aforesaid bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner along Virudhunagar – Nagercoil National Highway from North to South. Due to the uncontrollable speed and negligence of the bus driver near Virudhunagar – Maathunaickanpatti junction, the said bus dashed the backside of the lorry owned by the fourth respondent / second respondent bearing Registration No.TN 60 K 0045 which was parked in the left extreme facing South along with ignited parking lamp. As a result of this accident, Mr.Thomas and several passengers, who travelled in the said bus sustained grievous injuries. However, the said Mr.Thomas died on the spot. The accident was witnessed by one Mr.Mahesh.

(iii) During his death Mr.Thomas having served as a conductor of the Appellant – Transport Corporation, the deceased Mr.Thomas was receiving an amount of Rs.38,438/- as salary per month. The untimely death of Mr.Thomas affected the life of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 gravely. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Mr.Thomas. The second and third respondents are the children of the deceased Mr.Thomas. All the three together filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valliyoor, praying for a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till the date of realisation.

(iv)Three witnesses were examined on the sides of the petitioners and Exhibits P1 to P11 documents were marked on the side of the respondents. The eye witness Mr.Mahesh, was examined before the Tribunal and he deposed in his evidence before the Tribunal that at the time of accident parking lamps were on in the lorry against which the said bus dashed. Moreover, only on the complaint lodged by one Mr.Sivalingam, the driver of the lorry involved, the First Information Report marked as Exhibit P1 was registered by the jurisdictional police. Moreover the charge sheet marked as Exhibit P7 would reveal that after proper investigation, the investigating officer has concluded the investigation by fixing negligence on the driver of the appellant''s bus in the charge sheet. No evidence was taken on the side of the Appellant''s Corporation either to contradict or to cross-examine the witness. Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked substantiating the claim of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 / claimants and the circumstances which led to the fatal accident. As such, after considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant.

(v) The deceased was 54 years old and was a conductor at the time of his death in the Appellant – Transport Corporation. The claimants contended that the inco