The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the assessment of quantum of compensation, and the application of legal principles to enhance specific heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, appeal against the award and decree dated 18.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Krishnagiri.)

K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.

1. The Transport Corporation has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, aggreived by the award, dated 18.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2018 , on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Krishnagiri fastening liability on the appellant/Transport Corporation to pay compensation to the claimants.

2. The 1st claimant has filed Cross Objection in Cross. Obj. No.30 of 2023, aggrieved over the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Krishnagiri.

3. Both the C.M.A and the Cross Objections are taken together for disposal.

4. It is the case of the claimants, that on 29.05.2017 at about 16.45 hours when the deceased Sivarasan was driving his Scooty Zest 110 in Krishnagiri to Thiruvannamalai NH road towards Krishnagiri. While he was driving his vehicle near Periyapanamuttulu Village, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-1684 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the driver of the Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and therefore, prayed for appropriate compensation under various heads.

5. The appellant/Transport Corporation disputed the manner of the accident. It is submitted that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the respondent/claimant. It is also submitted that the deceased did not have driving license and was not wearing helmet at the time of accident which amounts to violation of Motor Vehicle Act under Section 129. Without prejudice to the above, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads were also disputed.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2 is said to be an eyewitness to the accident. The claimants have relied upon Exs.P.1 to P.15 to establish their claim. On the side of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1.

7. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, held that the driver of the Corporation bus is at fault and fixed the liability on the Transport Corporation to pay compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.36,63,296/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization.

8. Assailing the correctness of the award, Mr.T.Thiyagarjan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the Corporation bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-1684 is at fault, despite the fact that the deceased was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the Corporation bus, who had spoken about the manner of the accident. It is further submitted that the author of Ex.P.10 Certificate was not examined and no Tax deduction was made by the learned Tribunal while considering the three years Income Tax Returns. Hence, it is submitted that the Tribunal without taking into account the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased erroneously fastened the entire liability on the Corporation vehicle and also disputed the quantum of compensation arrived by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the deceased. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.1-FIR, he submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the Transport