Madras High Court
Manimegalai vs The Managing Director on 18 February, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
1.Manimegalai
2.Muthamilselvan
3.Angayarkanni
4.Sumathi
5.Rajkumar : Appellants/Petitioners
-Vs-
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Pudukkottai. : Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made in
MCOP No.408 of 2011, dated 22.05.2015 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge & Special Judge
for EC Act Cases), Pudukkottai.
For Appellants : Mr.R.P.Ramachanthiran
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging
the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional
District Judge & Special Judge for EC Act Cases), Pudukkottai, dated
22.05.2015 made in MCOP No.408 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
2.The short facts of the case is that on 14.06.2011 the
deceased Akilamuthu along with goods travelling in TATA AC Van
No.TN-55-Z-3158 on Aranthangi-Pudukkottai road and when the Van
proceeding near MNSK College, at that time, the Transport
Corporation Bus TN-63-N-372 came from opposite direction in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the TATA AC Van, resulting
which the driver of the TATA AC Van and deceased Akilamuthu were
sustained injuries and the deceased Akilamuthu died on the spot. The
legal heirs of the deceased Akilamuthu filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on the ground that the offending
vehicle caused the accident.
3.Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 2
witnesses were examined and marked 6 documents. On the side of the
Insurance Company, 1 witness was examined and no document was
marked.
4.The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the
driver of the TATA AC Van and the Transport Corporation Bus were
responsible for the accident and fixed the negligence 40% on the part
of the driver of the TATA AC Van and 60% on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
Transport Corporation Bus driver and awarded compensation of Rs.
2,61,000/- to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
p.a.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
6.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that the tribunal has erred in fixing the negligence at 40% on the part
of the driver of the TATA AC vehicle, in which the deceased travelled
and that the tribunal has not applied correct multiplier and the
monthly income fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side, so the
quantum is to be enhanced to some extent.
7.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased
was a retired Headmaster and after retirement, he was doing fish
wholesale business. Even though, on the side of the claimants, it is
stated that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-, the Tribunal, based
on the evidence and reliable document, has fixed the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. By applying multiplier '9' and after
deducting 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses, the Tribunal
has awarded Rs.4,05,000/- towards loss of income. Further, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st
claimant; Rs.2,500/- each to the claimants 2 to 5 towards loss of love
and affection; Rs.5,000/- for transportation charges and Rs.5,000/-
funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,35,000/-
together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. As the Tribunal has fixed 40%
negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA AC Van, after
deducting 40% negligence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,61,000/-
towards compensation to the claimants.
8.On coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that
the deceased was doing fish wholesale business after his retirement
from the post of Headmaster. Even though, no document has been
produced to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. However, even
though, no reliable document has been produced to prove the income
of the deceased, considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
this Court fixed income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. It is
not in dispute that the deceased died at the age of 60 years, as seen
from the award of the tribunal. As per the decision of the Constitution
Bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others (2017(13) SCALE 12, the claimants are not entitled to
any future prospects for the death of the deceased, since the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
is a retired Headmaster. By fixing the income of the deceased at Rs,
7,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th towards his personal and
living expenses, the monthly income of the deceased is calculated as
Rs.5,250/- (Rs.7,000/- - Rs.1,750/-). By applying proper multiplier 9,
this Court awards Rs.5,67,000/- (Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 9) towards loss
of dependency.
9.As per the decision of the the Hon'ble Supreme court in the
case of Pranay Sethi, the 1st claimant, being the wife of the deceased
is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In
total, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.6,37,000/- along with
interest @ 7.5% p.a.
10.With regard to negligence, this Court finds that the
tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence at 40% on the part of the
rider of the two wheeler and 60% on the part of the driver of the
Transport Corporation Bus. Hence, it is held that the claimants are
entitled to Rs.3,82,200/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% pa.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
11.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,61,000/- to
3,82,200/- and this amount of compensation shall be deposited by the
respondent Transport Corporation, less the amount already deposited
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till
the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made by the
Insurance Company, the the claimants are entitled to withdraw their
respective share as per the apportionment of the tribunal without
filing any formal petition before the tribunal. The appellants/claimants
shall pay the additional court fees, if any. No costs.
18.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sji
Note: In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.294 of 2016
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
sji
To
1.The Additional District Judge and
Special Judge for EC Act Cases,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Section Officer,
The Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
C.M.A.(MD) No.294 of 2016
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
