M.T. KURIAN Vs. N.A. BARAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. In M.A.C.O. Ps. 244/83 and 255/83. Petitioner in O.P. 244/83 are the wife, daughter and mother of one Dr. M.P. Thomas. He was riding a motor cycle from Cherpunkal to Athirampuzha along Ettumannoor-Palai Road. The claimant in the other petition Shri. M.T. Kurian was the pillion rider. They were travelling from east to west. While so, jeep PYP 4144 owned by first respondent and driven by 2nd respondent hit the motor cycle as a result of which the rider and the pillion rider sustained serious injuries. Dr. Thomas succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Alleging that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving by 2nd respondent the wife, daughter and mother of Dr. Thomas moved the tribunal claiming an amount of Rs. 3,07,400/-. The injured Kurian claimed an amount of Rs. 1,07,550/- . Both the petitions were heard jointly by Tribunal and as per the common order awarded an amount of Rs. 52,425/- to the claimants in D.P. 244/83 out of which Rs. 5,175/- was payable to the widwo of the deceased and Rs. 40,500/- to the daughter. The mother was found entitled to get Rs. 6,700/-. Shri. Kurian was awarded an amount of Rs. 35,000/-. The 3rd respondent insurer was found liable to pay the amounts awarded. The tribunal had come to the conclusion that both the jeep driver as well as the rider of the motor cycle were rash and negligent and the liability was apportioned in the ratio of 75:25. The total compensation awarded to the claimants in D.P. 244/83 was reduced by 75%. But no reduction was made in the case of the claimant in the other petition observing that he is only a pillion rider and has got cause of action against both the drivers. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded the claimants have come up in appeal M.F.A. No. 302/85 is by the petitioner in D.P. 255/83 and the other appeal no. M.F.A. 325/85 is by the petitioners in D.P. 244/83. Both the appeals were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) APPELLANTS challenge the findings of the Tribunal both on the aspect of negligence as well as on the quantum awarded. The grievance of the appellants in M.F.A. 325/85 is against the finding of the Tribunal that there was the negligence in the part of the rider of the motorcycle also. The tribunal found the driver of the jeep and the rider of the motor cycle negligent and the liability was apportioned in the ratio 75:25. Appellants contended that the accident happened solely due to rashness and negligence on the part of the jeep driver and that there was no negligence at all on the part of Dr. Thomas who rode the motor cycle at the time of accident. The driver of the jeep on the other hand stated that the motor cyclist had come at excessive speed and jumped into a guttar as a result of which he host control of the vehicle which went and dashed against the jeep. Appellant in M.F.A. 302/85 who was the pillion rider had spoken about the negligence on the part of the driver and an independent witness was also examined. Both of them had spoken about the manner in which the jeep was driven. The jeep was awarded suddenly towards right and that resulted in the jeep hitting the motor cycle, according to these witnesses. Referring to the scene mahasar and Tribunal has (sic) that the driver of the jeep might have swere the vehilcle. A little towards the right in order to avoid the irregular edges on the southern side of the road. The road lies straight at the place of accident. The collision took place at the middle of the road. There is straight vision to a distance of about 150 meters on both sides. The impact on the jeep was on the right bumper. The position of the vehicle at the time of the accident as mentioned in the scene mahazar prepared by the police in connection with a criminal case is indicative of negligence on the part of the jeep driver as well as the rider of the motor cycle and the tribunal has placed considerable reliance on the scene mahazar rather than on the testimony of the witnesses. An independent witness has no doubt spoken about the negligence on the part of the jeep driver. The injured had also tendered evidence. But the driver of the jeep had controverted the evidence tendered by these witnesses by saying that there has no negligence on his part whereas the motor cycle was ridden in a rash manner. From the material contained in the scene mahazar the Tribunal was able to find that the accident happened at the middle of the road and that is suggestive of negligence. On the part of the jeep driver and the rider of the motor cycle. Under these circumstances the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence is perfectly justified and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

(3.) THE daughter was aged only 6 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has estimated the total compensation at Rs. 54,000/- taking into account the contribution to the minor at Rs. 300/-. per month and adopting the multiplier as 15. The Tribunal has given reasons for adopting the multiplier as 15. By the time the girl reaches the age of 21 she is likely to get married and at or about that time she may also become a doctor or may out for some other employment. The widow of the deceased is a Medical Practitioner getting sufficient income. In these circumstances the contribution for the welfare of the minor daughter estimated by the Tribunal and the multiplier adopted by him are only reasonable. The total compensation estimated by the Tribunal does not therefore require any modification. Since both the petitioner were found to be negligent the minor girl was found entitled only to get 75% of the total estimates. We see no reason why that should be further increased. An amount of Rs. 9,000/- was estimated as compensation due to the mother of the deceased and that also has been reduced to Rs. 6,750/- being 75% of the total compensation. On a consideration of all the circumstances we feel that adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. No modification is required in appeal.