Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S. Rajalakshmi on 26 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No. 527 of 2021 &
C.M.P.No.3356 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam Division Ltd.,
Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam – 612 001. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. S. Rajalakshmi
2. M.Kanagavalli ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 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.1220 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr. D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Ms.Ramya V.Rao
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appellant / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal
challenging the award dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore in M.C.O.P.
No.1220 of 2015.
2.By consent of both parties, this appeal is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The respondents are the claimants and the Legal Representatives
of the deceased C. Rabbayil @ Subramaniyan, who died on 28.09.2013
as a result of an accident caused by a bus owned by the appellant /
Transport Corporation.
4. The claimants are the legal representatives and the dependants
of the deceased and they are his wife and daughter. They preferred a
claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District
Court, Cuddalore against the appellant / Transport Corporation seeking
a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court),
Cuddalore by its award dated 26.08.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1220
of 2015, directed the appellant / Transport Corporation to pay the
claimants a sum of Rs.18,65,000/- together with interest at 8% per
annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. Out of the total
compensation, the Tribunal determined the amount payable to the first
respondent / claimant being the wife of the deceased at Rs.14,65,000/-
and the second respondent / claimant, being the daughter of the deceased
at Rs.4,00,000/-.
6. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
respondents / claimants are as follows :-
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,94,366
Rs.24,079/- + Rs.3611.85 =
Rs.27,690.85 x 12 =
Rs.3,32,290/- Less
Rs.33,229/- towards Income
Tax @ 10% = Rs.2,99,061/- x
1/3rd towards personal
expenses = Rs.1,99,374/- x 9
multiplier = Rs.17,94,366/-
Conventional heads 70000
i.e. loss of consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Total 18,64,366
Rounded off 18,65,000
7. Mr.D. Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant /
Transport Corporation submits that the appellant / Transport Corporation
has challenged the award both on the liability as well as quantum. He
further reiterated the grounds and submitted that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the claimants
have not established before the Tribunal that the Driver of the bus owned
by the appellant / Transport Corporation was at fault, which resulted in
the accident. He also submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the
evidence of RW1, the Driver of the bus, wherein the Driver has stated
that the deceased had fallen down from the running bus negligently due
to carriage of suitcase in both of his hands. He further stated that the
Tribunal also failed to consider Ex.R1 and the deceased died after three
days from the date of accident. Hence, he prays before this Court to set
aside the impugned decree and judgment passed by the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, Ms.Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
respondents / claimants submits that due to negligence on the part of the
Driver of the bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation, the
accident happened, as an eye witness (PW2) has been examined before
the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly considered the same. She
further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is not excessive as the amount awarded under the “conventional
heads” is too meagre. Hence, she prays before this Court for an higher
compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused
the entire materials available on record.
10. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have filed four documents,
which were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and two witnesses were examined on
their side, namely, the second respondent / second claimant as PW1 and
an eye witness to the accident as PW2. On the side of the appellant /
Transport Corporation one document was filed and the same has been
marked as Ex.R1 and one witness was examined on their side viz., RW1.
11. From the materials on record, it is seen that the cause of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
accident has not been disputed by the Transport Corporation. Though it
is the contention of the appellant / Transport Corporation that mere
registration of an FIR is not enough for holding negligence on their part,
it has to be noted that the respondents/ claimants have proved their case
by not alone filing an FIR, which has been marked as Ex.P1 but has also
adduced oral evidence through an eyewitness to the accident viz., PW2.
No contra evidence has been produced by the appellant/ Transport
Corporation before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of the
respondents/ claimants that only due to the rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation, the
accident had happened which succumbed to fatal injuries. Thus, the
Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record
held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving
by the Driver of the bus owned by the Appellant / Transport Corporation
and hence, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal in
respect of the negligence aspect.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
deceased was aged 59 years at the time of the accident which happened
on 25.09.2013. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the age of the
deceased was 55 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
the age of the deceased as 59 years at the time of the accident based on
the Identity card issued by the Government of Puducherry, his employer,
which has been marked as Ex.P3. The deceased who was a Water Tank
Operator employed with Government of Puducherry was in receipt of
Rs.24,079/- per month as salary and to that effect, the claimants have
filed the Pay certificate of the deceased, which has been marked as
Ex.P4. The aforesaid contention is not disputed by the appellant /
Transport Corporation. Further, it is seen that after his death, the first
respondent/wife of the deceased is entitled for half of the monthly
income of the deceased i.e. Rs.12,039/- as family pension. Thus, the
deceased was 59 years at the time of accident and he had a left over
service of two months. The Tribunal following the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puttamma & Ors. vs.
K.L.Narayana Reddy & another reported in 2014 ACJ 526 did not
apply split multiplier and applied multiplier 9, as applicable to a person
aged 59 years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that split
multiplier has to be adopted and accordingly adopts split method for
calculating the amount under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal
has rightly awarded 15% towards future prospects and has also rightly
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
dependants of the deceased are three in number. Hence, this Court
awards the same to the respondents / claimants.
a. Thus, the loss of dependency while the deceased was in service
is calculated as follows :-
Monthly Income : Rs.24,079/-
Future prospects @ 15% : 3,611/-
--------------
Rs.27,690/-
Rs.27,690 x 12 x 1 = Rs.3,32,280/-
Less 1/3rd deduction : 1,10,760/-
------------------
Total (1) * 2,21,520/-
------------------
b. Thus, the loss of dependency while the deceased after the
period of retirement is calculated as follows :-
Monthly Income : Rs.12,039/-
Future prospects @ 15% : 1,806/-
--------------
Rs.13,845/-
Rs.13,845 x 12 x 8 = Rs.13,29,120/-
Less 1/3rd deduction : 4,43,040/-
------------------
Total (2) # 8,86,080/-
------------------
* Total (1) :Rs.2,21,520/-
# Total (2) :Rs.8,86,080/-
-------------------
Loss of dependency : Rs.11,07,600/-
-------------------
In effect, the total comes to Rs.11,07,600/- towards loss of
dependency.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
conventional heads, which has to be bifurcated and now this Courts
modifies such head and awarded the amount under separate heads i.e.,
loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral
expenses. Accordingly, this Courts awards a compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent /claimant,
being the wife of the deceased and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and
affection to the second respondent / claimant, being the daughter of the
deceased, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 16 SCC
14. This Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate
which the respondents / claimants are legally entitled to as per Pranay
Sethi's case.
15. Further this Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses as per the settled law.
16. Though it is a fatal claim, it is seen that the deceased was
hospitalised for a period of three days from the date of the accident, and
thus, this Court feels to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
head Transportation and accordingly, the same is awarded under the said
head.
17. Thus the second contention raised by the appellant / Transport
Corporation with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the award of the Tribunal is hereby
reduced in the manner indicated hereunder:
Heads Amount awarded Amount reduced
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 1794366 1107600
Conventional heads
i.e. loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral
expenses 70000 -
Loss of consortium to P1 - 40000
Loss of love and affection to 40000
P2 -
Loss of estate - 15000
Transportation - 10000
Funeral expenses - 15000
Total 1864366 1227600
Rounded off 1865000 1227600
19. In brief, this Court confirms the award of the Tribunal in respect
of the negligence aspect and with regard to the quantum of compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
is reduced from Rs.18,65,000/- to 12,27,600/- as stated supra.
20. On perusal of the impugned award, it reveals that the Tribunal
has erroneously awarded interest at 8% per annum. As per the normal
practice, the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 7.5% per annum.
Accordingly, this Court modifies the interest at 7.5% per annum instead
of 8% erroneously fixed by the Tribunal.
21. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of
with the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
21a. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit
the modified award amount (Rs.12,27,600/-), as assessed by this Court
together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the
date of realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit
of M.C.O.P. No.1220 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Court, Cuddalore, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The appellant /
Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw excess amount, if any
paid by them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
b. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer
the award amount directly to the bank account of the respondents
/claimants 1 and 2, as per the same ratio of apportionment made by the
Tribunal, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
26.08.2021
dpq
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The Principal District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
C.M.A.No.527 of 2021
26.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
