KANNAN TRANSPORT Vs. MARIA AROKIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 1983. The respondents herein brother and sister respectively of one Francis Gabriel. According to the case of respondents, on 11.11.1982 at about 5 p.m. Francis Gabriel was riding his bicycle slowly observing the rules of the road from east to west on the left side of Madurai...Dindigul near Visalakshi Mills at Vilangudi and his friend one Thavamani was seated on the carrier the cycle. At that time, the bus belonging to the first Appellant bearing registration 1076, which was also proceeding from east to west, was driven rashly and negligently driver Muru-gan with out sounding the horn and contrary to the road regulations and against Francis Gabriel, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the Alleging that the accident resulting in the death of Francis Gabriel was only on account rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the first appellant by its driver, respondents herein stated that taking into account the age of the deceased and his they are entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000. Referring amendments made to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred "the Act" by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (No.47 of 1982), the respondents claimed that the appellants were liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 as first mentioned compensation in accordance with Secs.92-A and 92-B of the Act and further stated secure this compensation, they need not plead or establish any wrongful act on the the driver or the owner of the vehicle, as the right to claim such compensation Sec.92-A of the Act is in addition to the other right to claim compensation referred to right on the principle of fault. Even in the paragraph relating to the reliefs prayed respondents stated that the appellants should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 immediately and should also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000 inclusive sum of Rs.15,000 referred to as the first mentioned claim therein.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the appellants, they resisted the claim for compensation made the respondents on the ground that Francis Gabriel suddenly darted across the road spite of the application of the brakes by the driver of the bus, the accident could averted and the cycle driven by Francis Gabriel hit against the bus, as a result of which lost his life and the accident was, "therefore, attributable only to the negligence deceased. The appellants also disputed the entitlement of the respondents compensation amount of Rs.40,000 claimed by them on the ground that it was excessive and on the high side.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, referring to Secs.92-A and 92-B of the Act particular to Sec.92-B(3), contended that the Tribunal had failed to give effect to Sec.92 (3), (a) of the Act and had proceeded to award compensation on the principle of no fault also on the basis of fault and had merely added up the two amounts of compensation this runs counter to Sec.92-B(3), (a) of the Act and at best, Tribunal could have passed award only for a sum of Rs.15,300 and, therefore, the award of the Tribunal modification. Reliance was also placed in this connection upon the decision reported India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ind Kaur, 1986 A.C.J. 194. On the other hand, learned for the respondents made a feeble attempt to sustain the award of the Tribunal on reasoning, besides submitting that the quantum of compensation awarded could be under the several heads of claim made by the respondents.