Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Venugopal on 25 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
and CMP.No.14405 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Chennimalai Road,
Erode. ... Appellant
Vs
1. Venugopal
2. V.Gayathri
3. V.Vasanthakumar
4. Srihari
5. M.Sankar
6. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Sidda Veerappa Chetty Street,
Dharmapuri Town and Taluk,
Divisional Office at Chamundi Complex,
Four road, Salem – 7. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
26.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan
For Respondents : M/s.SP.Yuaraj for Caveator
Mr.K.Premnath for R1 to R4
(Counsel for Caveators)
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award
dated 26.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
3. The appellant is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 2008 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court,
Salem. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Lakshmi, who died in the
accident that took place on 20.11.2001.
4. According to respondents 1 to 4, on 20.11.2011, the deceased was
travelling as a passenger in the Van bearing Reg.No.TN 28 H 4559 from
Salem to Tharapuram belonging to the fifth respondent and the driver of the
Van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the
traffic rules. At that time, the appellant bus bearing Reg.No.TN 33 N 1389
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
came in the opposite direction driven by its driver and all of a sudden the Van
hit against the Bus belonging to the fifth respondent and caused the accident.
Due to the said impact, the deceased and other passengers sustained grievous
injuries and the deceased died on the spot. At the time of accident, the
deceased was aged 52 years and was doing Tailoring job and was earning a
sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation against the 5th & 6th
respondents being the owner and Insurer of the Van respectively and against
the appellant-Transport Corporation.
5. The 5th respondent, being the owner of the Van remained exparte
before the Tribunal.
6. The sixth respondent/Insurance Company filed counter statement
and denied all the averments made by respondents 1 to 4/claimants.
According to the sixth respondent, the driver of the Van drove the same with
due care and caution, observing traffic rules and regulations. The accident did
not occur due to the negligence act of the driver of the Van belonging to the
fifth respondent. The accident was caused only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus. The sixth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
respondent/Insurance Company, being the Insurer of the fifth respondent's
vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to
4/claimants and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against them.
7. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4/claimants. According
to the appellant, the driver of the appellant bus drove the same with due care
and attention by observing the traffic rules. While proceeding near
Vattapalayam Privu Road, Uthiyur – Tharapuram Main road, the fifth
respondent’s Van came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the appellant bus and caused the accident. Hence,
the appellant-Transport Corporation is not responsible for the accident and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. Before the Tribunal the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1
and second claimant Gayathri was examined as P.W.2 and marked 9
documents as Ex.P1 to P9. On behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal,
one Arjunan was examined as R.W.1 and one Mahadevan was examined as
R.W.2 and marked 4 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
9. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the Van belonging to the fifth respondent herein and as well as
the driver of the appellant bus and fixed 50% negligence on both of them and
directed the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the sixth respondent-
Insurance Company to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.2,93,644/- as
compensation to the claimants.
10. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, dated
26.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 2008, the appellant-Transport
Corporation has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to
law and the Tribunal failed to note that the driver of the appellant-Transport
Corporation bus drove the same in a slow manner with due care and attention.
The Tribunal erred in fixing 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the
appellant-Transport Corporation. The Tribunal without any proper evidence,
awarded excessive amounts towards loss of income and the amounts awarded
by the Tribunal under different heads are excessive and prayed for setting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
13. The Tribunal holding that apart from deceased Lakshmi the legal
heirs of other deceased in the said accident and injured had filed several
claim applications in MCOP.No.1696 of 2002 to 1700 of 2002, 1702 of 2002
to 1706 of 2002 and while discussing as to the manner of the driving held that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers of
the appellant-Transport Corporation bus as well as the driver of the Van
belonging to the fifth respondent herein and held that both of them are
responsible for the accident. I do not find any error in the said reasoning of
the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the claim of
the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged 52 years, doing Tailoring work and was earning a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Except oral evidence, the respondents 1 to 4 have not
produced any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased.
In the absence of any document to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased, the Tribunal considering the year of accident, age and nature of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
work done by the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as notional
income of the deceased, which is not excessive. The deceased was aged 52
years at the time of accident and following the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 SC [Sarla Verma & Others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & another] and 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC)
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others] rightly applied
multiplier '11' and granted 10% enhancement towards future prospects. The
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
and awarded a sum of Rs.1,93,644/- towards loss of dependency. The
Tribunal considering entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of
Rs.2,93,644/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4, which is not
excessive warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the Tribunal has
awarded a total sum of Rs.2,93,644/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to
4/claimants. The Tribunal has fixed 50% negligence on both the drivers of
the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and driver of the Van belonging to
the fifth respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the appellant-Transport
Corporation as well as the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,93,644/-
jointly and severally, as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants. In
my considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
with the award passed by the Tribunal.
15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and sum
of Rs.2,93,644/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents
1 to 4, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit 50% of the award amount,
i.e.,Rs.1,46,822/- and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit balance
50% of the award amount i.e., Rs.1,46,822/- along with interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.361
of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District
Court, Salem. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are permitted
to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.08.2021
dpq
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2021
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
