- (1.) IN an accident which occurred on 12.9.2005, husband of the First Respondent and father of the minor children, Respondents 2 to 4, died. According to them, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 36 years and as a Powerloom worker, earned Rs.5,000/- per month. The Transport Corporation disputed the manner of accident and contended inter alia that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased. They also disputed the age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. Being aggrieved by the finding with regard to negligence and the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has preferred this Appeal.
(2.) ASSAILING the finding with regard to negligence and quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has erred in giving weightage to the evidence of PW.1, though the Inspector of the Transport Corporation, examined as RW.1, has clearly deposed that immediately after the accident, he had given a Complaint to Namagiripettai Police Station and that a case in Cr. No. 638 of 2005 was registered against the deceased, which has been marked as Ex.P1-FIR. He therefore submitted that when FIR has been registered against the deceased, the Tribunal, having regard to the oral testimony of RW.1, corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR, ought to have held that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident and that therefore, the Transport Corporation, cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation to the Respondents/claimants. Without prejudice to the above, on the quantum of compensation, learned Counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was employed as Powerloom Worker, the determination of monthly income on the basis of the oral testimony of PW.3 and the consequential computation of dependency compensation, is without any basis and therefore, the Tribunal has committed a material irregularity. It is his further contention that considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have applied -13- multiplier for computing dependency compensation. Justifying the award, learned Counsel for the Respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has properly analysed the evidence let in by both parties and arrived at a proper conclusion regarding negligence. He further submitted that FIR can be taken on record, only for the purpose of accident and the contents of the same, cannot be accepted, unless it is supported by the oral testimony. According to him, before the Tribunal, the claimants have established that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drive of the Transport Corporation and therefore, the finding cannot be termed as perverse. On the quantum of compensation, he submitted that the award of Rs.4,08,000/- for the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, who was a Powerloom Worker, cannot be said to be exorbitant.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal, PW.1, wife of the deceased has deposed that on 12.9.2005 about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was riding a TVS-Suzuki bearing Registration No.TN-28-3902 along with the pillion rider from Vadugam Pavankadu to Malayampatti for taking a rental car, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-1161, owned by the Appellant-Transport Corporation, came in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcyclist and in the accident, both the rider and the pillion rider were thrown away. Due to the accident, the motorcyclist sustained injuries in his head and immediately, he was taken to Suriya Hospital for first aid. Thereafter, the injured was referred to Kamala Hospital, Salem for further treatment on the same day and he was treated as in-patient from 16.09.2005 to 27.09.2005. After discharge, he was taken to Government Hospital, Salem, but he died on the way to the hospital. According to the claimants, the driver of the Appellant-Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident. The accident was reported to Nammagiripettai Police Station and a case in Cr. No. 838 of 2005 was registered against the motorcyclist, Subramanian, who died. Perusal of the award shows that though a Criminal case was stated to have been registered, no oral or documentary evidence was let in by the Transport Corporation to prove the course of action taken by the Police. Though it appears that an argument was advanced before the Tribunal that the Police, on investigation, laid a charge before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rasipuram, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced in support of the said contention. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has observed that finding of negligence cannot be fixed on the deceased merely on the basis of Ex.P1-FIR.;