Madras High Court
Pavithra vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 19 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
1.Pavithra
2.Minor Praveen Raj,
represented by mother and natural
guardian Pavithra
3.Sudha
4.Punniyakotti
5.Pavinesh
represented by mother and natural
guardian Pavitha ...Appellants
Vs
1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.
Rep by its Managing Director, Villupuram.
2.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director, Vellore.
3.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Rep by its General Manager, Tiruvannamalai. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.2016 made in
M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub
Court, Arni.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
For Appellants : M/s.Rebecca
For Respondents : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish of R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondents.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of
compensation.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.01.2011, while the deceased
Vigneshkumar along with Devaraj were travelling in a two wheeler bearing
registration No.TN 29 R 9308 from Arni to Vellore near Kaniyambadi, the bus
owned by the Tamilnadu Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN 21 N
0801 dashed against the two wheeler, in which, the rider Vigneshkumar sustained
grievous head injury. He was taken to the hospital. He could not survive the
injuries and died on the same day. Criminal case was registered against the driver
of the Transport Corporation by the Taluk police, Vellore. The wife, two minor
children and the parents of the deceased laid claim petition seeking compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
of Rs.20,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased was about 28 years old at the
time of accident earning Rs.15,000/- by hiring auto and running auto carriage.
4. The said claim was contested by the Transport Corporation on the
ground that the accident took place due to the negligence of the two wheeler rider,
who tried to over take the tourist bus. and dashed against the Transport
Corporation bus. The Two wheeler rider had no valid driving license and he was
not wearing helmet, therefore, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants.
5. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant Pavithra and the pillion rider
Devaraj were examined as PW.1 and PW.2. Six exhibits were marked on behalf of
the claimants. [In the judgment it is wrongly mentioned as 3 exhibits and Nil
Evidence on the side of the respondents.] For the Transport Corporation, the driver
of the Corporation was examined as DW.1. The Tribunal after considering the
evidence has held that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the
Transport Corporation driver and therefore, the Corporation is liable to pay the
compensation. Taking note of the deceased age as found in the post-mortem
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
certificate, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 28 years and in view
of absence of proof regarding income of the deceased, has fixed as Rs.5,000/-.
Multiplier method has been applied to arrive at compensation.
6. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out
that the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased and
also under other heads it ought to have awarded substantially higher amount
taking note of the dependency.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation
would submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of DW.1, the
driver of the Transport Corporation who has categorically explained the manner in
which the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the victim.
Further the learned counsel would also state that the Tribunal having accepted the
accident occurred due to failure of the two wheeler rider, substantial amount
should have been deducted for his negligence for not wearing the helmet and not
possessing valid driving license, which has been specifically admitted by the
claimant herself.
8. On considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
considerable cross submissions by either side.
9. The Tribunal considering the evidence had taken note of the
contributory negligence of the deceased for not wearing the helmet and driving the
two wheeler without valid driving license. However not deducted any money for
the contributory negligence. At the same time not considered future prospects
while computing loss of income. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in
Pranay Sethi case, this Court fix 40% towards future prospects of the deceased
and the notional income inclusive of future prospects is fixed at Rs.7,000/-
(Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000/-) out of which ¼th deducted for the personal expenditure of
the deceased. For loss of consortium to the wife Rs.40,000/- and for the loss of
love and affection to the minor children and parents Rs.20,000/- each is fixed.
Since it is proved through the evidence that the deceased had no valid driving
license and driven the two wheeler without helmet necessarily the contribution for
the statutory violation and policy violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, amount has
to be deducted towards negligence. Accordingly 10% of the award amount is
deducted towards contributory negligence and the award of the Tribunal is
modified as below:-
Loss of monetary contribution to Rs: 10,71,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
the claimants.
(Rs.5000+2000) x 1/4 x 17 x 12)
Loss of consortium: Payable to 1st Rs: 40,000
claimant (wife)
Loss of love and affection: Rs:80,000
Payable to claimants 2 to 5 (Rs.
20,000 each x 4)
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000
Loss of estate Rs.15,000
TOTAL Rs.12,21,000
Less 10% towards contributory Rs.10,98,900
negligence Rs.1,22,100/-
Rounded off to Rs.11,00,000/-
10. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified
award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till
the date of deposit, less the period of default if any. The claimants 1, 3 and 4 are
permitted to withdraw the modified award amount. The share amounts of the
minor claimants/appellants 2 and 5 shall be deposited into the Nationalised Bank
till the minors attain majority. The interest accrued on the deposited amount of the
minor claimants/appellants 2 and 5 shall be withdrawn by the 1 st appellant/mother
of the minor claimants once in every six months and the same shall be spent for
the welfare of the children.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
11. The entitlement of the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- among the
claimants/appellants shall be as under:
(i) The first claimant (wife) is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- with
proportionate interest.
(ii) The second and fifth claimants (children) are entitled for
Rs.3,00,000/ each with proportionate interest. Same to be invested in any one of
the Nationalised bank till they attain majority with permission to the mother and
natural guardian to withdraw interest once in 6 months and spent for the welfare of
the minors.
(iii) The third and fourth claimants (parents) are entitled for
Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed.
No costs.
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Arni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
C.M.A.No.1791 of 2017
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
