PERSON TRAVELLING IN BUS STANDING ON FOOTBOARD – WHETHER HE CAN CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

 

PERSON TRAVELLING IN BUS STANDING ON FOOTBOARD – WHETHER HE CAN CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

The effect of travelling in a foot board by a person in a bus, as far as motor vehicle accident laws are concerned, contributory negligence to the effect of 50% is fastened upon him.

This aspect has been discussed in Managing director, TNSTC  -- VS – Yamuna reported in 2019(1)TNMAC 66.

The brief facts of the case is as follows:

A person died as a result of an accident caused by a bus owned by the transport corporation. The deceased was travelling as a passenger in the bus owned by transport corporation and due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus he fell down from the bus and the back tyre of the bus ran over him which resulted in his death. The respondents are the dependants of the deceased, who are his wife, two minor children and his mother. They preferred a claim before the motor accidents claims tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ for the death.

The motor accidents claims tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record has passed an award, directing the appellant to pay 50% of total compensation of Rs. 7,53,000/ assessed by the tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization and in its finding has attributed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Aggrieved by the award passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, appeal has been filed by the transport corporation.

According to appellant, the tribunal failed to consider that the bus was proceeding with moderate speed at the time, when the deceased was travelling in foot board, lost his grip and fell down and sustained fatal injuries. According to him, the entire negligence is only on the part of the deceased and therefore, the appellant transport corporation is not liable to compensate the claim of the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that quantum of award is also excessive.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that the FIR was registered only against the driver of the bus owned by the appellant – transport corporation. He further submitted that on the side of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as witness (PW1) and an eye witness namely the co-passenger in the bus was examined as PW2. According to him both of them have deposed that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, the deceased was overthrown from the bus and the back tyre of the bus ran over the victim which resulted in his death. Before the tribunal, no documents were filed on the side of the appellant and the driver of the bus, who is an independent witness, was also examined as a witness by the appellant – transport corporation.

The tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and only thereafter has fastened 50% liability on the part of the appellant based on the finding that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also.

The high court is in agreement with the said finding as the tribunal has passed a reasoned and well considered award. In so far as total compensation assessed by the tribunal under the impugned award, the tribunal has rightly assessed the same following the well settled principles as laid down by the decisions of high court as well as the decisions of hon’ble apex court.

In the light of the above observations, the high court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The appellant transport corporation is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the tribunal together with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization as per apportionment made by the tribunal, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of concerned MCOP, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.