COMMON JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport corporation against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2016, dated 13.11.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the respondent-Transport Corporation and the respondents herein are the claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Cross Objection has been filed by the claimant to enhance the award amount in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2016, dated 13.11.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. The petitioners herein are the claimants and the respondent herein are the respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2016 , is as follows:

On 01.02.2013, when the deceased-Paramasivam was riding an auto bearing Registration No.TN-74-R-3308 along the Kanyakumari -Nagercoil main road, near Ethangadu ice plant, a Government bus bearing Registration No.TN-74- N-1678 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto. The deceased died on the spot. The deceased was working as an auto driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners are his dependants and they claimed a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.

164 of 2016, is as follows:-

The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The age, income and profession of the deceased are to be proved. The bus driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, keeping the left side of the road. It was the auto driver, who came from the opposite direction, crossed the center line, came in the wrong side of the road and dashed against the bus. The Insurance company of the auto is a necessary party to the case. The driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The claim under various heads is excessive.

5. 2 witnesses were examined and 3 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.

10,15,000/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has preferred this Appeal, on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal failed to fix the entire negligence on the deceased, who came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus and he invited the accident. The Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the entire liability on the bus driver. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which is very high. The Tribunal has added 25% towards future prospects, which is excessive. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 43 years, which is wrong. Deducting 1/4th income instead of 1/3rd of the income is wrong. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,45,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are all high.

7. A brief substance of the cross objection filed by the claimant is as follows:-

The date of accident is 01.02.2013. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium, instead of Rs.40,000/-

8. On the side of the Transport Corporation, it is stated that the accident is a head on collusion and at least 50% of the contributory negligence ought to have fixed against the auto driver. It is stated that the F.I.R is against the deceased, but, the Tribunal fixed the entire negligence on the bus driver, which is wrong. The claimant failed to file the copy of the rough sketch, observation mahazer and M.V.I report. Only based on the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the driver of