V.M Velumani, J.:— The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007 made in M.C.O.P No. 473 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukottai.
2. The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent, the respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal for the death of one Jeyaraj @ Selvaraj in a road accident.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:—
It is the case of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal that on 20.03.2005 at about 1.10 p.m, when the deceased viz., Jeyaraja @ Selvaraj was riding his cycle, the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant. Due to which, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and admitted in the ABC Hospital, Trichy and subsequently, died on 29.03.2005
4. According to the claimants, the deceased was working in Sidhar Vessels Company as Mechanic and earned Rs. 5,000/- per month and they were the dependants of the deceased and claimed compensation before the Tribunal.
5. The case of the claimants was resisted by the respondent/Transport Corporation by filing a counter statement. According to the respondent, the Driver of the Bus had driven the vehicle carefully by following the traffic rules. As the deceased suddenly crossed the road due to his negligence only the accident had taken place and hence, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that there is no proof for the income of the deceased and also the claimants are dependants of the deceased. In the absence of the same, the respondent/Transport Corporation prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal on the side of the claimants as many as 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 and P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined as witnesses and on the side of the respondents no one was examined and no document was marked. After considering the pleadings and evidence both the oral and documentary, the Tribunal directed the appellant/Transport Corporation to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,40,205/- with 7.5% interest per annum. Against which, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the learned Judge failed to see that accident took place only due to the negligence of deceased. The learned Judge failed to consider contributory negligence of deceased. The learned Judge on assumption came to the conclusion that only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus the accident occurred. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised objections with regard to occupation and income of the deceased as fixed by Tribunal. He further contended that the finding of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents contended that respondents proved the negligence and rash driving by Driver of Bus and also contended that amount of compensation is meagre and ought to be enhanced.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the records carefully.
10. The respondents claimed compensation for the death of Jeyaraj @ Selvaraj. According to them the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. To substantiate their case, they examined P.Ws.1 to 3 eye witnesses to speak about the manner in which the accident occurred and marked FIR given against the driver of the appellant bus. The appellant/Transport Corporation has not examined any witness to substantiate their claim that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased. The appellant has not proved that PWs.1 to 3 were not eye witnesses and only interested witness.
11. In the circumstance, the conclusion of the learned Judge that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Transport Corporation, cannot be set aside. The learned Judge came to the conclusion only after appreciating all the materials on record in proper perspective. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Judge has arrived at reasonable income of deceased and made necessary deduction and applied correct multiplier in arriving at compensation payable to the respondents. The compensation awarded is just compensation and not excessive or meagre. The appeal is devoid of merits and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, the award dated 26.02.2007 in M.C.O.P No. 473 of 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Pudukottai, is hereby confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.