Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Nagarathinam on 9 April, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
C.M.A.No.1155 of 2017
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Anna Salai,Chennai-2. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Nagarathinam
2. Sathya Jyothi (Minor)
Minor is represented by mother and next
friend Nagarathinam .. Respondents
C.M.A.No.1391 of 2017
1. Nagarathinam
2. Sathya Jyothi (Minor)
Minor is represented by mother and next
friend Nagarathinam .. Appellants
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Anna Salai,Chennai-2. .. Respondent
Prayer in both Appeals: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decretal order and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
Judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.4886/2007 dated 31.07.2015 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellants : M/s.K.Varadha Kamaraj
(in C.M.A.No.1391
of 2017)
(in C.M.A.No.1155 Mr.K.M.Moorthy
of 2017)
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Moorthy
(in C.M.A.No.1391
of 2017)
(in C.M.A.No.1155 M/s.K.Varadhakamaraj
of 2017)
COMMON JUDGMENT
C.M.A.No.1155 of 2017 has been filed by the Transport Corporation
challenging the fixation of liability on their part.
2. C.M.A.No.1391 of 2017 has been filed by the claimants challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
3 .The appellants in C.M.A.No.1391 of 2017 are the claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.4886 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai. They filed the above said claim petition,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one
Balamurugan, who died in the accident that took place on 12.09.2007.
4.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus of the Transport Corporation and directed the Transport
Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Five
Thousand only) as compensation to the claimantss.
5. Challenging the liability fastened on the Transport Corporation, the
Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A.No.1155 of 2017. Not being satisfied
with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come out with
the appeal in C.M.A.No. 1391 of 2017 seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as
claimants and Transport Corporation.
7. According to the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
accident occurred not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the
bus, but only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.
He would further submit that the bus number was also not entered in the
F.I.R. and therefore, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3461
belonging to the Transport Corporation, is not responsible for the accident. It
is further stated that the accident occurred at 8.45 A.M, but the F.I.R. was
registered at 11.45 a.m., and therefore there was a delay of 3 hours. He
further submitted that due to the reason that the deceased was thrown out
from the bus and thereafter he was hit by motorcycle, due to which the
decased sustained serious injuries and thereafter was taken to the hospital,
where he died and therefore in the present case, the rider of the Motorcycle
also contributed for the accident, thus the owner as well as the Insurance
Company of the motor cycle also should have been impleaded and liability
ought have been fastened on them also, and therefore, he submitted that the
fixation of the entire liability against the driver as well as the transport
Corporation is not correct, the same is liable to be set aside.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, P.W.2- eye
witness had spoken about the accident, who deposed that the accident had
occured due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
Registration No.TN-01-N-3461, who drove in a high speed in a rash and
negligent manner, and thus taking into consideration of all these aspects
liability was fixed against the Transport Corporation.
9. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below would go to show
that the Court below had taken into consideration the deposition of eye
witnesses-P.W.2 who deposed that the bus of the respondent bearing
Registration No. TN.-01-N-3461 was driven in a rash and negligent manner,
when the driver applied brake suddenly, the deceased was thrown out of the
bus, and sustained serious injuries and the driver of the bus did not stop.
Further, R.W.1- driver of the bus, in his cross examination submitted that he
was summoned by the police on 15.09.2007 and the bus was subjected to
Brake Inspector's inspection and his name was mentioned in Ex.P7-M.V.I.
Report. In Ex.P1-F.I.R., it has been stated the accident had occurred due to
negligence on the part of the bus driver who drove the vehicle in a high speed
in a rash and negligent manner. Taking all these into consideration, the
Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on
the part of the driver of the bus and therefore, the Tribunal has fastened the
entire liability on the Transport Corporation. When the Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
categorically held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence
on the part of the driver, fixation of liablity against the owner of the two
wheeler does not arise.
10. From the submission of the learned counsel for the Transport
Corporation, I do not find any negligence on the part of the rider of the two
wheeler so as to fasten the liability on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.
Therfore, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the Transport Corporation. Hence, there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the Tribunal, with respect to fixation of liability on the part
of the Transport Corporation.
11.As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the
Court below fixed notional income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per annum,
but it has applied the multiplier of 15 as per the schedule and fixed a sum of
Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of dependency.
12. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that taking into
consideration the increase in the cost of living, the said amount may be
enhanced. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on the Judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & another Vs
Lala & others reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 358 (SC), wherein, considering
the contribution of deceased to the family and also taking note of increase in
the cost of living, a sum of Rs.30,000/- per Annum was fixed and therefore
the learned counsel for the claimants prays that the same may be applied to
the present case also. He would further submit that the compensation awarded
towards other heads are also very low and prays for enhancement of the
same.
13.In the present case, admitedly the deceased has completed 10th
standard and while determining the notional income, the Court should have
taken into consideration the studies and other talents of the deceased who was
only 14 years at the time of accident. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court stated supra, it was held that the Rupee value has come down
drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non earning
member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum and
therefore by following the said Judgment, this Court is inclined to fix
notional income at Rs.30,000/- per Annum. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.
30,000/- is fixed as notional income and by applying multiplier 15, the loss of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
income of the deceased would be a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000x15).
14. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-. towards Love and
affection and the same stands confirmed. A sum of Rs.4,000/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses and this Court is inclined to enhance the same to
Rs.15,000/- and sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded towards damge to cloth and
articles stands confirmed.
15. Therefore, the compensation awared by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.3,05,000/- to Rs.5,41,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No Description Amount awarded Amount awarded by this Court
by Tribunal (Rs)
(Rs)
1. Loss of 3,05,000/- 4,50,000/-
Dependency
2. Love and 75,000/- 75,000/-
affection
4. Funeral expenses 4,000/- 15,000/-
5. Damage to 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing and
articles
Total Rs.3,05,000/- Rs.5,41,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
16.Out of the total enhanced award amount, the first claimant/mother is
entitled to a sum of Rs.3,01,000/- and the second claimant/sister is entitled to
a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-
17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.1391 of
2017 is allowed and C.M.A.No.1155 of 2017 is dismissed.
18. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,05,000/- is
hereby enhanced from Rs.3,01,000/- to Rs.5,41,000/- together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit
(excluding the period from 28.11.2011 to 08.03.2015). The Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this
Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4886 of 2007 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit,
the first claimant is permitted to withdraw her share of the award amount now
determined by this Court, as per the aforesaid apportionment , along with
proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the second
claimant is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till
she attain majority. On such deposit, the 1st claimant, being the mother of the
minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three
months for the welfare of the minor. The claimant is directed to pay
necessary Court fee, if any on the enhanced compensation. No costs.
09.04.2021
arr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Anna Salai,Chennai-2.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1155 & 1391 of 2017
arr
C.M.A.Nos.1155 and 1391 of 2017
09.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
