P.M. RAJAGOPALAN Vs. MOHANAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15th February, 1972 at about 2 -30 P.M. at Bodyguard Road, near Stanley Viaduct, Madras, one Munuswamo was travelling in the tempo, MSL 7442 from Parrys towards, Mount -Road. At that time, a bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation, collided with the said tempo. As a result of this accident, the said Munuswamy died. The brothers of the deceased filed O.P. No 615 of 1972 claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 on the ground that the accident had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles by the drivers under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. That claim was resisted by the Pallavan Transport Corporation contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus driver but because of the negligence of the deceased and the driver of the tempo MSL 7442. It also contended that the claim was excessive. The owner of the tempo contended that the claimants are not the heirs of Munuswamy, that the deceased was not employed under the 2nd respondent, that he had no right to travel in the tempo, that the deceased jumped into the tempo at a traffic stop surreptitiously of which the driver was not aware, and that, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of the said accident. He also contended that the damages claimed is excessive. The 3rd respondent in the O.P., the Insurance Company with which the tempo has been insured, contended that it is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent as the tempo was driven by the person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable as against the Insurance Company. The 3rd respondent also contended that the tempo was not used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and that in any event the amount claimed was excessive.

(2.) ON these rival contentions, the Tribunal had set out the following two points for consideration:

(3.) AS regards the quantum of compensation claimed, the petitioner's case was that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 15 per day for loading, unloading and delivering of the goods. But the Tribunal found that the deceased would have earned only a sum of Rs. 5 per day or Rs. 150 per month, that out of the said sum deceased would have spent a sum of Rs. 75 per month or Rs. 900 a year for the expense of the family. Taking the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 30 and adopting the multiplier of 15 the total compensation was determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 13,500 and, after allowance for lump -sum payment, a sum of Rs. 11,000 was fixed as reasonable compensation The said award of compensation of Rs. 11,000 has been challenged in CM.A. No. 715 of 1974 by the owner of the tempo MSL 7442.