Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Rasammal on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Rasammal
2.Sakthivel
3.Alagammal .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
02.02.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 02.02.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2011 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and
Sessions Court, Salem. The respondents filed the above said claim petition
claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one
Anandan, who died in the accident that took place on 19.11.2010.
3.According to respondents, on 19.11.2010 at about 17.00 hours, while
the deceased Anandan was trying to step down from the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 57 N 1323 belonging to appellant at Kaligoundanoor Bus
Stop through the front door, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus in a
rash and negligent manner. Due to the same, the said Anandan fell down from
the step of the bus and moved 10 feet away from the bus. On seeing this, the
passengers inside the bus shouted and on hearing the voice of the passengers,
the driver stopped the bus. In the accident, the said Anandan sustained
multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident,
the said Anandan was admitted in Government Mohan Kumaramangalam
Medical College Hospital, Salem. Inspite of treatment, the said Anandan
succumbed to injuries on 19.12.2010. Therefore, the respondents filed the
said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation against
the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondents. The appellant denied the
manner of accident as alleged by the respondents. According to the appellant,
on 19.11.2010 at about 17.50 hours while the bus was proceeding from
Dharmapuri towards Mettur, there was a commotion and the bus was stopped.
Thereafter it was told that a person who got into the bus at Kaligoundanur,
fell down due to intoxication. Immediately, the injured was taken to Hospital.
The accident has occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased
Anandan due to intoxication and not due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus belonging to appellant and hence, the respondents are not
entitled to any compensation as claimed by them. The respondents have to
prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid
documents. The appellant denied the period of treatment taken by the
deceased. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
and one Ramasamy, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 6
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the appellant, one
Madhaian, Driver of the bus belonging to appellant was examined 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.7,75,000/- as compensation to
the respondents.
7.Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
in the award dated 02.02.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2011, the
appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
respondents failed to prove the age, 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.6,000/- per month fixed by the
Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is excessive. The multiplier '15'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
adopted by the Tribunal is not correct and the correct multiplier applicable as
per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1
SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another], is '14'. In any event, the total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.7,75,000/- 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.
10.From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the claim
of the respondents that the deceased was aged 45 years, working as Painter
and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident. But
they failed to prove the said contention. In the absence of any material
evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal has fixed a sum
of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional 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.6,000/- per month as notional income of the
deceased. The accident occurred in the year 2010 and the monthly income
fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. As far as the contention of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
counsel appearing for the appellant that multiplier '15' adopted by the
Tribunal is not correct and the correct multiplier applicable is '14' as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC
Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
another] is concerned, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of
accident. The Tribunal failed to grant any enhancement towards future
prospects. Further, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral
expenses is meagre and the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss
of estate. In view of the same, the multiplier '15' applied by the Tribunal
instead of '14' is not interfered with.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a
sum of Rs.7,75,000/- 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
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem. On such deposit,
the respondents are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
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. No costs.
23.02.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.458 of 2021
23.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
