Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Rani on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2594 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Salamedu, Villupuram Division,
Villupuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Rani
2.Siva
3.Sathya
4.Saravanan
5.Saritha
6.Sharmila
7.Kannammal .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
04.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 04.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.
The respondents filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Mayavan, who died in
the accident that took place on 20.03.2016.
3.According to respondents, on 20.03.2016 at about 07.30 A.M., while
the deceased Mayavan was riding as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN 32 AH 3849 ridden by one Sampathkumar on the left
side of the Thirukoilur – Sankarapuram road near the agricultural land
belonging to one Arunachalam Advocate located in between the Poomari and
Karadi, the driver of the bus belonging to appellant, who was driving the bus
on the same direction, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident.
In the accident, the said Mayavan was thrown away from the motorcycle,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
sustained multiple grievous injuries and died in the hospital. Therefore, the
respondents filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as
compensation against the appellant.
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondents. The appellant-Transport
Corporation denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents.
According to the appellant, at the time of accident, while the driver of the bus
was driving the bus slowly by observing all traffic rules towards Thirukoilur
near a left side curve after Poomari, the rider of the motorcycle, in which the
deceased was travelling as pillion rider, who was riding the motorcycle
behind the bus belonging to appellant, tried to overtake the bus without
giving any signal or indication. Due to non availability of sufficient space,
the rider of the motorcycle dashed on the Chinnakannar bridge and then
dashed on the right side of the bus and invited the accident. Therefore, the
accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part rider of the
motorcycle and not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus
belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. Further, the rider of the
motorcycle as well as the deceased were not wearing helmet at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
accident. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the
respondents. The owner and insurer the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN 32 AH 3849 have to be impleaded as necessary parties in the claim
petition. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation and
income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed
by the respondents is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1,
one Sampathkumar, who was the rider of the motorcycle as well as
eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 10 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to 10. The appellant-Transport Corporation examined one
Palanisamy as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
6.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation
and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.11,62,000/- as compensation to
the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
7.To set aside the award dated 04.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of
2017, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.1, who was not an
eyewitness to the accident. The Tribunal ought not to have held that mere
registering of F.I.R. is more enough for fixing negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus. The respondents failed to prove the avocation and income
of the deceased by producing valid documents. In the absence of any material
evidence to prove the avocation and income, a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month
fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is excessive. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are excessive. In any
event, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,62,000/- is
highly excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the
Tribunal.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the entire materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
10.It is the case of the respondents that while the deceased Mayavan
was riding as pillion rider in the motorcycle ridden by one Sampathkumar on
the left side of the Thirukoilur – Sankarapuram road near the agricultural land
belonging to one Arunachalam Advocate located in between the Poomari and
Karadi, the driver of the bus belonging to appellant, who was driving the bus
on the same direction, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident.
In the accident, the said Mayavan was thrown away from the motorcycle,
sustained multiple grievous injuries and died in the hospital. To prove the
said contention, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, examined one
Sampathkumar, who was the rider of the motorcycle as well as eyewitness to
the accident as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the
driver of the bus as Ex.P1 and other documents. On the other hand, it is the
case of the appellant that at the time of accident, while the driver of the bus
was driving the bus slowly by observing all traffic rules towards Thirukoilur
near a left side curve after Poomari, the rider of the motorcycle, in which the
deceased was travelling as pillion rider, who was riding the motorcycle
behind the bus belonging to appellant, tried to overtake the bus without
giving any signal or indication. Due to non availability of sufficient space,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
the rider of the motorcycle dashed on the Chinnakannar bridge and then
dashed on the right side of the bus and invited the accident. To prove the said
contention, the appellant examined the driver of the bus Palanisamy as
R.W.1. R.W.1 is an interested witness and the appellant has not examined any
other eyewitness to prove their case that accident has occurred only due to
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and has not filed any
objection to the F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus.
Further, the appellant has not proved by acceptable evidence that the rider
and pillion rider of the motorcycle were not wearing helmet at the time of
accident. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2,
Ex.P1/F.I.R., R.W.1 and failure on the part of the appellant for not filing any
objection to the F.I.R., not lodging any complaint against the rider of the
motorcycle and not examining any other independent witness, held that
accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of
the bus belonging to 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, it is the claim of
the respondents that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
working as an Assistant to Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per
month. But they failed to prove the said contention. In the absence of any
material evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the
Tribunal considering the year of accident, age and nature of work done by the
deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month as notional income of the
deceased. The accident occurred in the year 2016 and the monthly income
fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. There are 7 dependents of the deceased and
the Tribunal failed to deduct any amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased. In view of the same, the amount of Rs.6,500/- per month fixed by
the Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is not interfered with. The
Tribunal considering entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of
Rs.11,62,000/- as compensation to the respondents, which is not excessive
warranting interference by this Court.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a
sum of Rs.11,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-
Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with
interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. On such deposit, the
respondents are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award
amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with
proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
22.02.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Special District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Villupuram.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.394 of 2021
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
