- (1.) THE claimants in MCOP No.1322 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, are the appellants in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. THEy made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 towards compensation for the death of their son Chengalvarayan in an accident involving a vehicle belonging to the respondent/Corporation.
(2.) THEIR case was that on 2.6.1991 at about 3.15 P.M., when the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the P.T.C. bus bearing registration No.TCB 4830 at Perambur Barracks Road, opposite to Police Quarters, Madras 7, proceeding from South to North, driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, the driver suddenly applied brakes, with the result, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained multiple injuries which proved to be fatal. The respondent/Corporation, being the owner of the vehicle, was statutorily and vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. According to the claimants, the deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident and working as Sweeper-cum-Messenger in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 10 and earning Rs.1,000 per month. He died a bachelor and the parents, as appellants, were entitled to be paid compensation. The respondent resisted the claim contending inter alia as follows: The bus, bearing registration No. TCB 4830, was not involved in the accident on 2.6.1991. The said bus completed all the trips without any such accident/incident as alleged by the claimants. The claimants had to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. The Traffic Investigation Officer at Kilpauk Police Station wrongly registered the case against the driver of the bus eventhough the registration number of the bus was not at all mentioned in the First Information Report as well as in the sketch prepared by the Inspector. As the bus bearing registration No. TCB 4830 was not involved in the accident the respondent was not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, the compensation claimed was highly excessive, exorbitant and fanciful and the claimants had to prove the age, income, contribution, etc. of the deceased. On the side of the claimants/parents. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On the side of the respondent/Corporation, the driver of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1 and the copy of the accident report was marked as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal held that the claimants had not proved that the bus in question was involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus. In coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal discredited the evidence produced on the side of the appellants as contradictory regarding the route number of the bus involved in the accident and the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, drawn by the police. Thus, the Tribunal found that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. Mr.K.K.Dhandapani, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in its approach to the whole question, that the Tribunal should have accepted the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 and their statements should have been accepted as the same had come from disinterested witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that the driver of the bus, examined as R.W.1 had admitted that at the relevant time, he had driven the bus at 30 kms. per hour. This would amply prove that the factum of accident had been admitted and the total denial of the accident by the respondent/Corporation should have been rejected by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that there was enough evidence on the side of the claimants to show that the Vehicle TCB 4830 - was alone involved in the accident as it would be clear from the evidence of P.W.4. The learned counsel also relied on the omission on the part of the respondent/Corporation to make available the trip sheet and the log book relating to the vehicle during the relevant period. The learned counsel also, in support of his submissions, relied on the following judgments: 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare , 1982 A.C.J. 284 ; 2. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari , 1986 A.C.J. 699 and 3. A decision of a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.126 of 1996, dated 13.3.1997.
(3.) PER contra, Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that the appellants had not established their case by any acceptable evidence that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellants had been improving their case with each witness, that when once a witness was found to be not truthful, they produced another witness and then a third witness and so on, and none of the witnesses had spoken to having seen the accident. In fact P.W.2 had spoken to his having shifted the deceased to the hospital while the First Information Report stated that one Sekar removed the deceased to the hospital. In short, the evidence, on the side of the claimants was bristling with inconsistency and inasmuch as the appellants had not proved their case, the Tribunal's order rejecting their claim for compensation should be left undisturbed. The learned counsel, particularly, relied on the oral evidence of the driver of the vehicle as R.W.1 who had spoken to his being elsewhere in Thiru Vi Ka Nagar during the relevant time when the accident was alleged to have taken place and this evidence stood uncontroverted. One Purushothamman has been examined as P.W.2. He has given the route number of the vehicle as A 42. He was a flower vendor and in the cross-examination he stated that at the time of the accident he was stringing the flowers and he did not leave his work spot and only the people who had seen said that the vehicle had hit the boy and that he did not actually see the vehicle hitting the boy. It is not put to him that the vehicle did not pass that place at that time. It was also not suggested to him that no such accident took place. One Srinivasan has been examined as P.W.3. He has given the registration number of the vehicle as TCB 4830. According to him, the vehicle was going north from south and the driver applied sudden brake, as a result of which a person aged about 24 fell down from the bus and the bus moved away without stopping. He further deposed that he along with a flower vendor shifted the injured to the hospital, that he was questioned by the police in the hospital and gave his statement that he also gave the registration number of the bus. He further deposed that he saw the deceased fall down from the bus and the rear wheel running over him. He denied the suggestion that he did not shift the injured to the hospital and that one Sekar alone did that. He gave the route number as 38 C. He could not give the fleet number of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that no vehicle belonging to the respondent/Corporation was involved in the accident. ;