The court affirmed that negligence was properly attributed to the bus driver and upheld the compensation awarded for injury, emphasizing the proper application of the multiplier method.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal/ III Additional District Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam in M.C.O.P. No.51 of 2020 Court dated 21.04.2023, wherein the respondent herein has filed a claim petition seeking compensation as against the appellant for the injury sustained by him in a Road accident and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,19,289/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved over the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. Before the Tribunal, the respondent herein filed a petition stating that the petitioner is residing in Melur Village, Thittakudi Taluk and he is aged about 50 years and he is doing Supervisor work in abroad and earning around Rs.1 lakh per month. While so, on 28.12.2019 at about 11 a.m., when he was standing at the left side of the Road near bus stand, the driver of a bus bearing Registration No.TN21 N 1733 had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to that impact, the respondent sustained injuries all over his body and he was permanently disabled and therefore, he claimed Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation.

3. The appellant filed a counter by denying the facts and stated that on the date of accident, the respondent fell down due to his negligence and the driver of the bus drove the bus in a slow speed and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the respondent and therefore, the respondent also contributed the negligence.

4. The Tribunal based on the above said pleadings, framed points for determination as to whether the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and whether the respondent is entitled to the compensation and if so, what is the amount.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of appellant / respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and on the side of the respondent / petitioner, he himself was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the side of the appellant / respondent, no any documents were marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,19,289/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation on the ground of 'negligence' and 'quantum'.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on the date of accident, the respondent himself fell down and sustained injuries and the driver of the bus is no way responsible for the accident and without minding the bus proceeding in a Road, the respondent attempted to cross the road and dashed against the bus. Therefore, he is also responsible for the accident, but the Tribunal without considering the same, fixed the liability only as against the driver of the bus. Further, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier method and without any material to prove the monthly income of the respondent, had taken the monthly income of the respondent as Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the same is too high and the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. This Court heard the appellant side and perused the records.

8. Now the point is whether the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver and fixing of the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month are sustainable?

9. In this case, before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. On the side of the appellant / respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1. As per the evidence of PW1, the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the dr