Transport Corporation liable as common carrier despite passenger intoxication; minimal contributory negligence (10%) upheld due to absent safety measures.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

The appellant, the State Transport Corporation, challenges the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 395 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul.

2.Facts of the Case:

The claim petition was filed by the respondent/claimant seeking compensation for the death of one Jayaraman. According to the claimant, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the appellant Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN57 N 1294 on the Vadasandur–Dindigul Road. It is alleged that the driver of the appellant Corporation bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the bus, sustained grievous head and bodily injuries, and subsequently succumbed to the same in the hospital.In this connection, a criminal case was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No. 108 of 2023 against the driver of the appellant Corporation bus for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was stated to be aged about 40 years and employed as a carpenter, earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. The respondent/claimant, being a dependent of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

2.1.The appellant Corporation filed a counter statement denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim petition. It was contended that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and, despite repeated warnings by the conductor, attempted to alight from the moving bus, thereby voluntarily inviting the accident. Hence, according to the appellant, the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence, and being a tortfeasor, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

2.3.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondent/Transport Corporation, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs. R1 to R3 were marked.

3.Finding of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, including the evidence of eyewitnesses, came to the conclusion that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of the occurrence. Taking into account the said circumstance, the Tribunal held that the deceased had contributed to the accident to a certain extent due to his inebriated condition and fixed contributory negligence at 10% on the part of the deceased. With regard to the quantum of compensation, in the absence of documentary proof to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.16,000/-, placing reliance on the principles laid down in the decision in the case of Andal and others v. Avinav Kannan and another reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 54 Thereafter, by applying the appropriate multiplier and other conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.29,62,800/- on the following heads:

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant Transport Corporation has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4.Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the lack of entitlement of certain claimants, particularly the fifth respondent, and erroneously awarded consortium, including parental consortium, to him. It is further submitted that the award of Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of estate is contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned counsel would further argue that the Tribunal did no