Thiruvannamalai - (1.) BY consent, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
(2.) THE appeal is preferred by the claimants against award dated 29.03.2006 made in MACTOP No.130 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge ), Thiruvannamalai. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased-Ethiraj, met with fatal accident on 27.06.2004 at about 11,45 a.m. The deceased was proceeding as pillion rider on a bicyle from Mallavadi along with one Velu. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN-23-J-7475 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance company, which was coming from Thiruvannamalai driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle. Due to which, the pillion rider-Ethiraj fell down and had sustained injuries. Immediately he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai for treatment and later in the Government General Hospital, Chennai. The claimants are the wife, two sons and one daughter of the deceased. The claimants/appellants claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The second respondent-Insurance company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's bus driver or not" 2. Who is responsible to pay the compensation amount as fixed in this petition" If so, how much"" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 2,64,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- ----------------- Total... Rs. 2,71,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimants and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the multiplier of 10 and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the second claimant, who is the son of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of the inquest report. Ex.P4 is the Insurance policy. Exs.P5 and P6 are the xerox copies of the Accident Registers. Ex.P7 is the xerox copy of the Express report. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.P9 is the Identity card. Ex.P10 are the chandha receipts. Ex.P11 is the copy of the demand petition form-C. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.;