Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P. Rathina Devi on 4 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.4196 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.23713 of 2019
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai Limited,
Madurai Region, Bypass Road,
Madurai 625 010. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.P. Rathina Devi
2.Dharmaraj .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018, made
in M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2016, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal), Sathyamangalam.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Nalliyappan (For R1)
No appearance (For R2)
_____
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018,
made in M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2016, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Sathyamangalam.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2016, on
the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Sathyamangalam. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition,
claiming a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her son
viz., P. Muralidharan, who died in the accident that took place on 05.12.2015.
3.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, when the
deceased Muralidharan was driving his Auto bearing Registration No.TN-60-
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
K-9375 along with passengers namely Mariammal, Meenakshi Sundaram and
two others at Andipatti to Madurai main road from North to South at the left
extreme side of the road, near T.Subbulapuram Vilakku, when the Auto
intended to turn towards Andipatti side, driver of a Bus bearing Registration
No.TN-58-N-2073 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation coming
from West to East, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
on the Auto driven by the deceased and caused the accident. The accident
occurred due to negligent driving by driver of the Bus. In the accident, the
deceased succumbed to fatal injuries. Hence, the 1st respondent filed claim
petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as driver and
appellant as owner of the Bus involved in the accident.
4.The 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus, remained exparte before the
Tribunal.
5.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
According to the appellant, on the date of accident, when the Bus belonging to
them was driven by the 2nd respondent from Theni to Madurai, the deceased
who was driving the Auto in North to South direction, while trying to enter
Andipatti, drove the same in and negligent manner, without sounding horn
and dashed on the Bus driven by the 2 nd respondent and caused the accident.
The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased.
At the time of accident, in violation of policy conditions, the deceased has
permitted more persons to travel in the Auto and he did not possess valid
driving license to ply the vehicle. Hence, for violation of policy conditions, the
appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. In any event,
the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1,
examined one eye witnesses viz., Sekar as P.W.2 and marked 16 documents as
Exs.P1 to P16. The appellant examined the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus
involved in the accident as R.W.1, but did not mark any document.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-
Transport Corporation and directed the appellant as well as the 2 nd respondent
to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.18,69,600/- as compensation to the 1st
respondent.
8.Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in
the award dated 14.09.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2016, the appellant
– Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation contended that in the absence of any evidence by the 1st
respondent to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, the sum of
Rs.9,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income is on higher
side. The Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier '18', instead of the correct
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
multiplier '17'. The Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% towards
personal expenses before adding the future prospects. The amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is on
higher side and prayed for reducing the compensation granted by the
Tribunal.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/claimant contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was
an Auto Driver, aged 27 years and was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per
month. The Tribunal considering Exs.P10 and P11 – Registration Certificate
and Permit for the Auto, rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as
claimed by the 1st respondent and awarded compensation. The amount
granted by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection to the 1 st
respondent/widowed mother of the deceased is just and reasonable. The total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
11.Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent and his name
is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person
or through counsel.
12.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation as well as the 1st respondent and perused the materials available
on record.
13. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of
the 1st respondent that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27
years, Auto Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. To prove
the same, she has filed Exs.P10 and P11 viz., Registration Certificate and
Permit for the Auto. The Tribunal considering the materials on record, rightly
fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-, but erroneously
applied multiplier '18'. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], the correct multiplier
applicable is '17'. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly
granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The deceased was a
bachelor at the time of accident. Hence, deducting 50% towards personal
expenses of the deceased, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss
of dependency is modified to Rs.12,85,200/-{[Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-(40% of
Rs.9,000/-)] x 12 x 17 x 1/2}. The Tribunal has excessively awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The 1st respondent/mother of
the deceased is entitled to only a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and
affection. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate.
Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. The amounts
granted by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the
same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award
by Tribunal awarded by confirmed or
(Rs) this Court (Rs) enhanced or
granted
1. Loss of dependency 17,49,600/- 12,85,200/- Reduced
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
2. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
4. Loss of love and 1,00,000/- 40,000/- Reduced
affection
5. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
Total 18,69,600/- 13,60,200/- Reduced by
Rs.5,09,400/-
14.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.18,69,600/- is modified to Rs.13,60,200/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award
amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the
credit of M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2016. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is
permitted to withdraw the award amount, now determined by this Court,
along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The
appellant-Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount,
lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2016, if the entire award amount
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
has already been deposited by them. It is made clear that if the 1st respondent
has already withdrawn the entire award amount, the appellant/Transport
Corporation is not entitled to recover the same from the 1st respondent.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
04.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Sathyamangalam.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4196 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.4196 of 2019
04.02.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
