Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Sreedevi on 17 April, 2021
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
and
CMP.No.11040 of 2018
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
(Chennai Division) Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 600 002. .. Appellant
Versus
1. Sreedevi
2. R.Reetchatha
3. Yogitha .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2016 made in
MCOP.No.1793 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Special Sub Judge No.I, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
For appellant : Mr. S.S. Swaminathan
For respondents : Mr. K. Ramanatha Reddy
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J)
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
2. Challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai/Special Sub Judge No.I,
Chennai in MCOP No.1793 of 2009, dated 04.03.2016, the present appeal has
been filed by the Transport Corporation.
3. The respondents are the wife and daughters of the deceased
Ranga Reddy. It is the case of the respondents / claimants before the Tribunal
that on 28.12.2005 at about 10.15 hours, while the deceased was riding his
Scooter bearing Registration No.TN 23 Y 8182 on Dr.Vijayaraghavalur Road,
the Bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 1725, belonging to the appellant
Corporation came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter driven by the
deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately, he was taken to a Hospital and in spite of treatment given to him,
he died on 26.08.2007. For the death of the deceased, the claimants have filed
the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the Transport Corporation by
denying negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant-Transport
Corporation Bus. It is the specific defence of the appellant that on 28.12.2005,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
the Bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 1725 was in its schedule trip
proceeding from Ennore to Vallalar Nagar. At about 10.10. hours, when the
bus turned and proceeding towards Dr.Vijayarahavalur Road, the deceased
came in the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 23 Y 8182 in a hectic
speed from the opposite direction and dashed on the front side of the Bus.
Thus, the deceased has fully contributed to the accident and that was the
reason why the first information report was registered against him. Therefore,
the appellant/Transport Corporation prayed for dismissal of the claim petition
filed before the Tribunal.
5. In order to prove the averments in the claim petition, on the side of
the respondents/claimants, the first respondent/wife of the deceased examined
herself as PW1, besides examining 2 other witnesses as PW2 & 3 and marked
20 documents as Exs. P1 to P20. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the
driver of the Bus was examined as RW1 and no document was marked on their
side.
6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, had come to the
conclusion that, the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the
Bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 1725 belonging to the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
Transport Corporation. By coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.42,26,166/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of the
deceased and directed the Transport Corporation to pay the said amount. The
break-up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads
are as follows:
S.No. Heads under which amounts are awarded Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Financial Dependency to the Family 29,19,735
2. Loss of Consortium to first claimant 1,00,000
3. Loss of Love and Affection to each of the 1,00,000
claimants 2 & 3
4. Medical Expenses 10,41,431
5. Attendant & Conveyance charges 30,000
6. Funeral and Ritual Expenses 25,000
7. Loss of Estate 10,000
Total 42,26,166
7. Now, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation
challenging the findings rendered by the Tribunal with respect to liability and
quantum of compensation. It is the case of the appellant/Transport Corporation
that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent act of the deceased.
On the date of the accident, while the Driver of the Bus was proceeding
towards Dr.Vijayaraghavalu Salai, the deceased without noticing the
on-coming Bus from the opposite direction, drove the Scooter in a hectic
speed and dashed against the Bus. In fact, the First Information Report was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
registered only against the deceased and not against the driver of the appellant-
Transport Corporation Bus. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have
fixed the entire liability on the part of the deceased and dismissed the claim
petition. Instead of doing so, the Tribunal fixed the entire liability on the part
of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation Bus and passed an award
in favour of the respondents/claimants. Hence, he prays for setting aside the
award passed by the Tribunal and consequently to dismiss the claim petition.
8. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/claimants submitted that though a defence was taken by the
appellant-Transport Corporation that the accident had occurred due to the
negligent act of the deceased, except the evidence of RW1, the driver of the
Bus, no other independent witness was examined to corroborate the evidence
of RW1. However, the claimants examined the eye-witness to the accident as
PW2 and through him, they have proved the manner of the accident and also
the negligence on the part of the Driver of the Bus. The evidence of PW2 is
not rebutted by the appellant/Transport Corporation by adducing any other
contra evidence. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly rejected the evidence of RW1
as untrustworthy and passed an award in favour of the claimants. There is
absolutely no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
claimants prayed to confirm the order passed by the Tribunal and to dismiss
this appeal.
9. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
10. It is the contention of the appellant/Transport Corporation that the
the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased
himself. In order to prove such a defence, the driver of the Bus was examined.
Further, we find that the First Information Report was also registered against
the deceased and not against the driver of the Bus. The First Information
Report was registered based on the complaint given by one independent
witness, Mr.Velu, Auto driver. While so, the Tribunal ought not to have
rejected the First Information Report. It is needles to mention that, the contents
of the First Information Report can be taken into account, since it has come
into existence at the earliest point of time. There is nothing for the Court to
disbelieve the contents of the First Information Report or to discard it on any
ground. A First Information Report is the best piece of evidence to be taken
cognizance of by the Courts. The contents of the First Information Report can
be inferred for the purpose of forming a prima-facie opinion in a motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
accident case. Therefore, at the outset, the Tribunal is not justified in
discarding the first information report registered against the deceased himself.
11. We wish to observe that even though there may be negligence on the
part of the deceased while taking left turn, had the driver of the Bus been
vigilant, he would have averted the accident. Hence, we are of the opinion that
negligence is on the part of the driver of the Bus to a great extent. Hence, by
relying upon the FIR and evidence on both sides, this Court is of the view that
the liability has to be fixed on both sides in the ratio of 70% on the part of the
driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation and 30% on the part of the
deceased.
12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we find that the
deceased was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board and earning a sum of Rs.30,297/- per month as salary. To prove the
income of the deceased, his salary certificate was marked as Ex.P20. The
Tribunal by taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.26,407/- and by
adding 30% of the same towards future prospects, arrived at the actual
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.34,329/- [26,407 + 7,922]. Then, the
annual income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.4,11,948/- [34,329 x 12].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
Thereafter, by deducting Rs.75,056/- towards Incomes Tax, the Tribunal
arrived the actual annual income of the deceased at Rs.3,36,892/- [4,11,948 –
75,056]. Then, by applying multiplier “13”, the Tribunal arrived the “Loss of
Financial Dependency to the Family” at Rs.29,19,735/- [3,36,892 x 13]. We do
not find any infirmity in the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head
“Loss of Financial Dependency to the Family” in such a manner as has been
adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, the amount awarded under such head is
confirmed.
13. As per the oft-quoted judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017)
16 SCC 680], a sum of Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded to each of the legal heirs
of the deceased towards "Loss of Love and Affection". However, in this case
Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal to each of the claimants, which had
resulted in awarding an exorbitant sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head "Loss
of Love and Affection". Hence, a sum of Rs.80,000/- is hereby awarded under
the head “Loss of Love and Affection”.
14. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal under the head
“Loss of Consortium” to the first claimant and it appears to be on the higher
side, hence, the same is hereby reduced to Rs.40,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
15. The sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head
“Loss of Estate” appears to be on the lower side and hence, the same is hereby
enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
16. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under all the other heads are
fair and reasonable and hence, they are confirmed.
17. In effect, the total compensation payable to the respondents /
claimants is re-calculated and tabulated below:
S.No. Heads under which amounts are Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs.
awarded
1. Loss of Financial Dependency to 29,19,735 29,19,735
the Family
2. Loss of Consortium to first 1,00,000 40,000
claimant
3. Loss of Love and Affection to 1,00,000 80,000
each of the claimants 2 & 3
4. Medical Expenses 10,41,431 10,41,431
5. Attendant & Conveyance charges 30,000 30,000
6. Funeral and Ritual Expenses 25,000 25,000
7. Loss of Estate 10,000 25,000
Total 42,26,166 41,61,166
(-)30% contributory negligence 12,48,350
Compensation payable 29,12,816
rounded of to
29,13,000
18. Accordingly, this Court hereby awards a sum of Rs.41,61,166/- to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
the claimants as compensation for the death of the deceased Ranga Reddy.
Since 30% negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased, out of the total
compensation of Rs.41,61,166/-, the claimants are entitled for Rs.29,13,000/-
with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of payment.
The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the total compensation
awarded by this Court before the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount if any
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The apportionment of shares fixed by the Tribunal to
the claimants is hereby confirmed. On such deposit, the claimants are
permitted to withdraw their respective shares including the accrued interest.
The appellant is entitled to withdraw excess compensation, if any, already
deposited before the Tribunal.
20. With the above observations and directions, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[R.P.S., J] [S.K., J]
17.04.2021
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pvs/rsh
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Judge No.I,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11 / 12
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
R. SUBBIAH, J
and
S. KANNAMMAL, J
pvs/rsh
C.M.A. No.1382 of 2018
and
CMP.No.11040 of 2018
17.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12 / 12
