Madras High Court
The General Manager vs C.Selvam on 19 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2576 of 2021
The General Manager
]Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Selvam
2.S.Thangaraj
3.S.Vasu ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.7 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Vellore at Ranipet.
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation to set aside the award dated 03.02.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.7 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Vellore at Ranipet.
2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.7 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Additional District Court, Vellore at Ranipet. The respondents filed the said
claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the
death of one S.Santhoshkumar, who died in the accident that took place on
08.06.2016.
3.According to the respondents, on the date of accident i.e., on
08.06.2016 at 10.15 a.m., while the deceased Santhoshkumar was walking on
Arakkonam Road from Tiruthani Bus Stand to Tiruthani Murugan Temple,
the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation,
who came behind the said Santhoshkumar, drove the same in a rash and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
negligent manner, dashed against the said Santhoshkumar and caused the
accident. In the accident, the said Santhoshkumar sustained fatal injuries
and died on the spot. Hence, the respondents have filed the above claim
petition claiming compensation against the appellant/Transport Corporation.
4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and stated that while the driver of
the bus was driving the bus from Cheyyar to Tirupathi, near Tiruthani Bus
Stand, the deceased Santhoshkumar, who was coming in the opposite
direction, threw a bag before the bus, fell in front of the bus in order to
commit suicide and invited the accident. The accident did not occur due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Therefore, the appellant is
not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. In any event, the
compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, father of the deceased,
examined himself as P.W.1, one Jeeva, eye-witness to the accident was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
examined as P.W.2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The
appellant/Transport Corporation examined one Selvaraj, the driver of the bus
as R.W.1 and did not file any document.
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.16,97,800/- as compensation to the
1st respondent and dismissed the claim petition as against the respondents 2
and 3, the brothers of the deceased, as they are not legal heirs of the deceased
Santhoshkumar,
7.To set aside the said award dated 03.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.7
of 2017, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation contended that the accident has occurred only when the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
threw the bag before the bus in order to commit suicide. The appellant
examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and proved that the driver of the bus
is not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the
evidence of the driver of the bus as R.W.1, erroneously relying on the
contents of F.I.R., fixed entire negligence on the driver of the bus. In any
event, the Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% contributory negligence on the
deceased. The learned counsel further contended that according to the
respondents, the deceased was working as a building contractor & mason and
was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of accident. The
respondents have failed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased.
The Tribunal erroneously fixed monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/- and granted excessive amount as compensation, which is
contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (2) SCC
735 (Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company Limited) and prayed for setting aside the award of the
Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
9.Heard through “Video-conferencing” the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on
record.
10.It is the case of the respondents that while the deceased
Santhoshkumar was walking on Arakkonam Road, the driver of the bus
belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the said Santhoshkumar and caused the
accident. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the said
Santhoshkumar died. In support of their case, the 1st respondent, father of the
deceased examined himself as P.W.1, one Jeeva, eye-witness to the accident
was examined as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the
driver of the bus as Ex.P1. It is the case of the appellant/Transport
Corporation that the deceased threw the bag before the bus, in order to
commit suicide, fell before the bus and invited the accident. To prove their
case, they examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. The contention of the
appellant that the Tribunal merely relying on F.I.R., fixed entire negligence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
on the driver of the bus is contrary to the records. The respondents examined
P.W.2, an independent eye-witness to prove that the accident has occurred
only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The driver of
the bus or the appellant did not give any complaint against the deceased
Santhoshkumar or file any objection to the contents of F.I.R. being registered
against the driver of the bus. Further, the appellant has not examined any
independent witness to substantiate their case. The Tribunal considering the
evidence of P.W.2 and F.I.R., held that the accident has occurred only due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the
appellant/Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the
Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
11.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents
claimed that the deceased was working as a building contractor & mason and
was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month at the time of accident. They
failed to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any material
evidence with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal
fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs.12,000/-
fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2014 (2) SCC 735 (Syed Sadiq and others vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited) is
concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- as monthly
income of the claimant for the accident occurred on 14.02.2008. In the
present case, the accident occurred on 08.06.2016 and the monthly income
fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is also not excessive warranting interference by this Court.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.16,97,800/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st
respondent along with interest and costs is confirmed excluding the default
period from 30.01.2019 to 02.11.2019. The appellant/Transport Corporation
is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1 st
respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already
withdrawn. This appeal is also dismissed as against the respondents 2 and 3.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
19.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
kj
To
1.II Additional District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Vellore at Ranipet.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
Kj
C.M.A.No.389 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2576 of 2021
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
