Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Bakkiyalakshmi on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 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. Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem Division II) Limited,
Bharatipuram, Dharmapuri. .. Appellant in
all the appeals
Vs.
C.M.A.No.468 of 2021
1.Bakkiyalakshmi
2.Venkatesan
3.Anand
4.Kalaidass
5.S.Subramanian
6.Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at No.23B,
Arunagiri Complex, By-pass road,
Hosur 635 109.
_____
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
7.M/s.Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Milk Producer Union Limited,
Kanaga Muttulu Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk & District.
8.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Having office at Anuradha Complex,
3rd Floor, Opposite to Raja Theatre,
Bangalore Road,
Krishnagiri 635 001. .. Respondents
C.M.A.No.469 of 2021
1.Ramya
2.Minor Vennila
3.Minor Santhosh
4.Minor Nila
(Minors rep. By their next friend
and mother Ramya)
5.Mani
6.Chennammal
7.S.Subramanian
8.Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at No.23B,
Arunagiri Complex, By-pass road,
Hosur 635 109.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
9.M/s.Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Milk Producer Union Limited,
Kanaga Muttulu Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk & District.
10.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Having office at Anuradha Complex,
3rd Floor, Opposite to Raja Theatre,
Bangalore Road,
Krishnagiri 635 001. .. Respondents
C.M.A.No.470 of 2021
1.Kasthuri
2.Shilpa
3.Shailaja
4.Minor Shresha
(rep. By her next friend
and mother Kasthuri)
5.T.Ebirappa
6.Varalakshmi
7.M/s.Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Milk Producer Union Limited,
Kanaga Muttulu Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk & District.
8.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Having office at Anuradha Complex,
3rd Floor, Opposite to Raja Theatre,
Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri 635 001.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
9.S.Subramanian
10.Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at No.23B,
Arunagiri Complex, By-pass road,
Hosur 635 109. .. Respondents
C.M.A.No.471 of 2021
1.S.Kalpana
2.Shrimathi
3.Minor Navaneeethakrishnan @ Navaneeth
(Minor rep. By his next friend
and mother S.Kalpana)
4.Govindhammal
5.S.Subramanian
6.Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at No.23B,
Arunagiri Complex, By-pass road,
Hosur 635 109.
7.M/s.Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Milk Producer Union Limited,
Kanaga Muttulu Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk & District.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
8.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Having office at Anuradha Complex,
3rd Floor, Opposite to Raja Theatre,
Bangalore Road,
Krishnagiri 635 001. .. Respondents
C.M.A.No.472 of 2021
1.Selvarani
2.K.Jagadeesan
3.K.Padmapriya
4.Rathinammal
5.S.Subramanian
6.Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at No.23B,
Arunagiri Complex, By-pass road,
Hosur 635 109.
7.M/s.Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Milk Producer Union Limited,
Kanaga Muttulu Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk & District.
8.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Having office at Anuradha Complex,
3rd Floor, Opposite to Raja Theatre,
Bangalore Road,
Krishnagiri 635 001. .. Respondents
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section
173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award dated
18.01.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, on the
file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Krishnagiri.
(In all the appeals)
For Appellant : Mr. D. Venkatachalam
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the appellant-Transport Corporation
to set aside the common award dated 18.01.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.851,
938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.
2.All the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award.
Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
3.The appellant in all the appeals is the 1st respondent-Transport
Corporation in M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, on the file of
the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.
The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.No.468 of 2021, respondents 1 to 6 in
C.M.A.No.469 of 2021, respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.A.No.470 of 2021 and
respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2021 respectively filed the
above said claim petitions, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/-,
Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation for the
death of G.Raja, M.Krishnan, Balan, K.M.Sekar and K.Kasinathan
respectively who died in the accident that took place on 14.02.2013.
4.The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions, for
the sake of convenience.
5.According to the claimants in all the claim petitions, on the date of
accident, the deceased M.Krishnan, Balan, K.M.Sekar and K.Kasinathan
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
traveled in a Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-2309 belonging to the 1 st
respondent-Transport Corporation along with other passengers from
Krishnagiri to Hosur, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner. When the said TNSTC Bus was proceeding at Sappadi Erikarai, a
SRS Private Bus bearing Registration No.TN-24-F-2377 belonging to the 2nd
respondent coming behind the TNSTC Bus in a rash and negligent manner,
hit behind the TNSTC Bus. Due to the said impact, the driver of the TNSTC
Bus lost control and dashed on a Aavin Tanker Lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-29-Z-3200 belonging to the 4th respondent and driven by one G.Raja
in the opposite direction from Hosur towards Krishnagiri and caused the
accident. Again the driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd
respondent dashed against the TNSTC Bus and both the Buses capsized. The
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by drivers of both the
TNSTC Bus as well as the SRS Private Bus. In the accident, G.Raja,
M.Krishnan, Balan, K.M.Sekar and K.Kasinathan sustained fatal injuries and
thus, the claimants filed the above said claim petitions, claiming
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
compensation against the 1st respondent as owner of TNSTC Bus,
respondents 2 and 3 as owner and insurer of the SRS Private Bus and
respondents 4 and 5 as owner and insurer of the Aavin Tanker Lorry
respectively.
6.The 1st respondent-Transport Corporation filed separate counter
statements and denied all the averments made by the claimants in the claim
petitions. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, the TNSTC
Bus was plying between Krishnagiri and Bangalore cautiously with due care
after following all the traffic rules on the left side of the road. The traffic was
diverted to Hosur-Krishnagiri road, since the Krishnagiri-Hosur road was
under renovation work. At about 13.45 hours, when the TNSTC Bus was
proceeding near Sappadi, next to Shoolagiri at Erikarai stop, on seeing the
rash and negligent driving by driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to
the 4th respondent which was proceeding towards Krishnagiri, the driver of
the TNSTC Bus stopped the Bus on the left side of the road. The SRS Private
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent was coming behind the TNSTC Bus. As
the traffic was diverted in single lane, all the vehicles passed slowly and
cautiously. But due to the high speed in that narrow road, the driver of the
Aavin Tanker Lorry lost his control over the vehicle and ran over the centre
mediators and hit against the right side body of the Bus and dragged up to
rear side of the TNSTC Bus and also hit against the right front side of the
SRS Private Bus and caused the accident. Due to this impact, the TNSTC Bus
and the SRS Private Bus capsized on the left side of the road. The Shoolagiri
Police have registered a case against the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry in
Crime No.72/2013. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent
and the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
The claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased
and their legal heirship to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the
claim petitions.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
7.The 2nd respondent, owner of the SRS Private Bus, remained exparte
before the Tribunal.
8.The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of the SRS Private
Bus, filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made in
the claim petitions. According to the 3rd respondent, when the driver of the
Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent drove the same from
Hosur-Krishnagiri in a rash and negligent manner, at uncontrollable speed, he
lost control of his vehicle and ran over the centre median and hit against the
TNSTC Bus and also hit the SRS Private Bus and caused the accident. In the
said impact, the TNSTC Bus capsized. The accident occurred only due to rash
and negligent driving by driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4 th
respondent. In any event, the 2nd respondent violated the policy conditions by
permitting the driver of the SRS Private Bus to drive the vehicle without
possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the 3 rd
respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The claimants have
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and their legal
heirship to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petitions.
9.The 4th respondent-owner of the Aavin Tanker Lorry, filed separate
counter statements and denied all the averments made in the claim petitions,
except the manner of accident. According to the 4th respondent, the accident
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by drivers of both the TNSTC
Bus and SRS Private Bus belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
Hence, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants. In any event, the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and
income of the deceased and their legal heirship to claim compensation. The
total compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of all the claim petitions.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
10.The 5th respondent, insurer of the Aavin Tanker Lorry, filed separate
counter statements and denied all the averments made in the claim petitions,
except the manner of accident. According to the 5th respondent, in the claim
petitions, the claimants have claimed that the accident occurred when drivers
of both the TNSTC Bus and SRS Private Bus belonging to the respondents 1
and 2 respectively, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the Aavin Tanker Lorry. Hence, the respondents 4 and 5 who are the
owner and insurer are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In
any event, the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry did not possess valid driving
license and the vehicle was plied without permit. For violation of policy
conditions, the 5th respondent is not liable to indemnify the 4th respondent. In
any event, the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the
deceased and their legal heirship to claim compensation. The total
compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed for dismissal
of all the claim petitions.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
11.Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined the 1st claimant in all
the claim petitions as P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.8, P.W.3, and P.W.1 respectively, one
Sakthivel, eye-witness as P.W.7 and marked 28 documents as Exs.P1 to P28.
The respondents were examined one K.Baskar as R.W.1 and marked one
document as Ex.R1.
12.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
all the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and fixed 40%
negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent-Transport
Corporation bus, 30% negligence on the part of the driver of the SRS private
bus belonging to the 2nd respondent and 30% negligence on the part of the
driver of the Aavin tanker lorry belonging to the 4th respondent. The Tribunal
granted a sum of Rs.24,43,000/-, Rs.18,63,000/-, Rs.14,13,000/-,
Rs.13,38,000/- and Rs.18,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
respectively and directed the 1st respondent to pay 40% of the award amount,
respondents 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay 30% of the award amount
and respondents 4 and 5 to jointly and severally pay 30% of the award
amount granted to the claimants.
13.To set aside the said common award dated 18.01.2016 made in
M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, the 1st respondent-Transport
Corporation has come out with the present appeals.
14.Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent-Transport Corporation contended that the accident occurred only
due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the other vehicles and the
Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the TNSTC
bus belonging to the 1st respondent. The Tribunal ought to have considered
the FIR which was registered against the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry
belonging to the 4th respondent and fixed entire negligence on the driver of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
the Aavin Tanker Lorry. In the absence of any document by the claimants to
prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, the monthly income
fixed by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions is excessive. The total
compensation granted by the Tribunal under other conventional heads are
excessive and prayed for setting aside the common award of the Tribunal.
15.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-
Transport Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
16.From the materials on record, it is seen that FIR was lodged against
the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry, who died in the accident. The complaint
was given by the Village Administrative Officer who was not an eye witness.
P.W.7 is the only eye witness examined in all the claim petitions. He deposed
that he traveled in the TNSTC Bus belonging to the 1 st respondent and
according to him, the driver of the TNSTC Bus belonging to the 1st
respondent drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner, came behind the TNSTC Bus and dashed
against the back side of the TNSTC Bus. In view of the said impact, the
driver of the TNSTC Bus lost control and dashed against the Aavin Tanker
Lorry which was coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner.
Again the driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent
dashed against the TNSTC Bus and the said Bus capsized. P.W.7 deposed that
the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry also drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the Bus. The 1st respondent has not
examined the driver of the TNSTC Bus or any other eye witness to disprove
the evidence of P.W.7. The driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry died in the
accident. R.W.1 is only an official from the Insurance Company and he is not
an eye witness. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.7 and contents
in the claim petitions wherein it has been pleaded that the drivers of all the 3
vehicles drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and all the vehicles
involved in the accident are heavy vehicles, held that all the 3 drivers are
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
responsible for the accident and fixed contributory negligence of 40% on the
part of the driver of the 1st respondent, 30% on the part of the driver of the
SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent and 30% on the part of the
driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent and directed
the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation to pay 40% of the compensation
awarded, the respondents 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay 30% and the
respondents 4 and 5 to jointly and severally pay 30% of the compensation
granted by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions. There is no error in the said
award warranting interference by this Court.
17.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
has considered the documents filed in the claim petition in M.C.O.P.Nos.796
and 851 of 2013 with regard to income of the deceased and fixed monthly
income of the deceased. In M.C.O.P.No.949 of 2013, the claimants have
contended that the deceased was running a Dry cleaning shop and Laundry
shop and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month, in M.C.O.P.No.929 of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
2013, the claimants have contended that the deceased was an Agriculturist
and was selling flower and doing cloth business and was earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month and in M.C.O.P.No.938 of 2013, the deceased was a
Building Contract Labourer and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month.
The claimants have failed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased
persons in the above three claim petitions. In the absence of material, the
Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-, Rs.7,500/- and
Rs.8,000/- respectively. The accident is of the year 2013. The monthly income
fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The total compensation amounts
awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive.
18.In the result, all the appeals are dismissed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.24,43,000/-, Rs.18,63,000/-, Rs.14,13,000/-,
Rs.13,38,000/- and Rs.18,62,000/- along with interest and costs is confirmed.
The 1st respondent is liable to deposit 40% of the award amount. The
respondents 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to deposit 30% of the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
award amount, respondents 4 and 5 are jointly and severally directed to
deposit 30% of the award amount along with interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938,
949, 929 & 796 of 2013. Out of the 40% award amount which the 1st
respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit, the 1st respondent is
directed to deposit 50% of the 40% of award amount along proportionate
with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit
of M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013 and deposit the remaining
50% of the 40% award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs,
within eight weeks thereafter.
(i) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.Nos.851 & 796 of 2013, the
respondents 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount,
along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment
fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.
(ii) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.938 of 2013, the respondents 1, 5
and 6 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with
proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. The shares of the minor
respondents 2 to 4 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized
Bank, till the minors attain majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor
respondents 2 to 4 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three
months for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 to 4.
(iii) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.949 of 2013, the respondents 1 to
3, 5 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along
with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed
by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by
filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The shares of the minor 4th
respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor 4th
respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three
months for the welfare of the minor 4th respondent.
(iv) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.929 of 2013, the respondents 1, 2
and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with
proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor 3rd
respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank,
till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor 3rd
respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three
months for the welfare of the minor 3rd respondent. No costs.
23.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
gsa
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. Nos.468 to 472 of 2021
23.02.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
