Negligence of the bus driver was upheld, but modifications were made to the compensation awarded based on evidentiary shortcomings.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CMA(MD)No.937 of 2012 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013 The Managing Director, M/s. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, TVS Bus Stop, Pillai thaneer vanthal, Pudukottai. ... Appellant vs.

1. Uggivanam

2. Sreeram

3. Nambi

4. Rajalakshmi

5. Mohansingh ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011 passed in MCOP.No. 78 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai.

For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Saravanakumar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUAN, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011 passed in MCOP.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai.

2. The facts of the case are that on 14.01.2008, the husband of the 1^st respondent/claimant and father of the respondents 2 to 4/claimants namely, Ethirajan was travelling in a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-63-T-4689 as a pillion and the said two wheeler was driven by the 3^rd respondent/claimant. While they were coming on Karaikudi-Sekkalai road, a bus bearing registration No.TN-55-N-0383 belonging to the appellant transport corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said two wheeler, in which, the right side wheel of the bus ran over the left knee and left foot of the deceased. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Karaikudi, where it was informed that he died. The wife and sons of the deceased filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The appellant transport corporation filed counter affidavit disputing the manner of accident by contending that at the time of accident, the two wheeler was driven by the minor son of the deceased in violation of the licence conditions and that he drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner at a great speed and hit the bus from behind. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant disputed the age, income, avocation of the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads.

3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the son of the deceased was examined as PW1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW2 and 26 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P26. On the side of the appellant, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no document was marked on their side.

4. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus and consequently directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.32,28,552/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Assailing the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and quantum of compensation, the appellant corporation has filed this appeal.

5. On the aspect of negligence, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the minor to drive a vehicle in public place, but in this case, one of the claimants/PW1 who was the minor son of the deceased, drove the two wheeler in which the deceased seated as a pillion and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. He would further contend that a reading of the evidence of PW1 would show that he was studying 12^th Standard at the time of accident and without attaini