Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Kalpana on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2672 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore Region, 37, Mettupalayam Salai,
Coimbatore 641 043. ... Respondent/Appellant
..Vs..
1. Kalpana
2. K.Raghu
3. K.Vanitha
4. Valliammal ... Petitioners/Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgement and decree dated 25.2.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.499 of
2009 on the file of Principal District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.Sundaravadhanam
For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Ms.Revathy for
Mr.R.Nalliappan
*****
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the claimants' case is as follows:
On 25.05.2009 at about 5.00 a.m., the deceased Kumarasamy was
engaged in selling milk and when he was proceeding in his bicycle towards
Vijayapuram to Tiruppur from east to west direction on the left side of the road in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
cautious manner, at Nallur Ottanthar thottam, opposite to Senthil Andavar Electric
shop, the appellant Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN 33 N 2202 came
from behind in rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased
Kumarasamy, thereby caused accident, resulting in the deceased succumbed to
fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to Government hospital, Tiruppur and
thereafter, shifted to Coimbatore Medical College hospital, Coimbatore where he
underwent treatment as inpatient and died on the same day. A case in Cr.No.978
of 2009 under Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. has been registered by Tiruppur
Rural Police Station. The wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased have
filed a claim petition before the tribunal claiming Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation
from the appellant Corporation.
3 The appellant Corporation has contested the claimants' case by
filing counter wherein it is stated that on seeing the deceased while riding bicycle,
the driver of the bus blown horn and drove the bus in very low speed and overtake
the cyclist on the right side of the road and given sufficient space. However, due
to negligent riding of the deceased, the cycle hit the left side of the bus and fell
down and sustained injuries and he died on the same day due to the injuries. The
deceased was solely responsible for the accident. The compensation claimed by
the claimants is excessive.
4. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1
to 15 were marked. No witness was examined or any documents marked on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
side of the appellants. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence
and the arguments advanced by both sides, has awarded Rs.6,62,500/- as total
compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition
till realization. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal under various
heads are as follows:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Compensation for loss of dependency 6,00,000/-
Loss of consortium to 1st Respondent 25,000/-
Loss of Love and affection 25,000/-
Transport charges 5,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of estate 2,500/-
Total 6,62,500/-
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/
appellant Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
monthly income of the deceased fixed by the tribunal is unacceptable as there is
no supporting materials placed before the tribunal. Further, it is contended that
the multiplier adopted by the tribunal is not in consonance with the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma case. Therefore, the tribunal
erroneously passed the award and the same requires modification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
7. Ms.Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/
respondents while rebutting the contention of the appellant, would seek
enhancement of compensation to the claimants. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, claim petition has been filed by four claimants,
viz., wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased. Tribunal failed to take note
of the evidence of P.W.3, who was working as Manager in S.P. Processing
Company, where the deceased was working and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, and
wrongly rejected the claim of the respondents, by fixing Rs.5000/- as monthly
income of the deceased. To that extent, P.W.3 deposed before the Court below
that the deceased was working in the said company and drawing salary of
Rs.9000/- per month. Therefore, she seeks enhancement of compensation awarded
by the tribunal.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant Corporation is that the notional income of the deceased as fixed by the
tribunal is excessive. There is no supporting materials to prove that the deceased
was earning Rs.5000/- per month. On perusal of the award passed by the tribunal,
by way of producing documents marked as Ex.P11, 12 and 13 made an attempt to
establish that apart from selling milk, he was working in the aforesaid company
and drawing salary of Rs.9000/- per month. However, the tribunal rejected the
aforesaid materials by stating that the relevant documents like attendance
register, acquittance register, Provident Fund account etc. were not produced to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
prove that the deceased was working in the aforesaid company and was drawing a
salary of Rs.9000/- per month. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly fixed the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. However, this Court
accepted the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Corporation that since the age of the deceased is 45 years, as per Sarala Varma
case, the tribunal ought to have adopted 14 multiplier instead of 15. In sofar as
the contribution towards personal expenses, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, the tribunal ought to have
deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, after deducting 1/4th
towards personal expenses, contribution of the deceased to his family comes to
Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.6,30,000/-. In sofar as other heads are concerned, it
is appropriate for this Court to determine just and fair compensation to the
claimants as follows:
Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the enhanced/
tribunal awarded by this
Rs. Court (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 6,00,000/- 6,30,000/-
Loss of consortium to 1st 25,000/- 25,000/-
Respondent
Loss of Love and affection 2nd, 25,000/- 15,000/-
3rd and 4th Respondent 15,000/-
respectively 10,000/-
Transport charges 5,000/- 5,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/- 10,000/-
Loss of estate 2,500/- 15,000/-
Total 6,62,500/- 7,25,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
9. Accordingly, the respondents/claimants are entitled for
Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and twenty five thousand only) along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The
appellant/transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs.7,25,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, after
deducting the amount if any, already deposited before the tribunal. On such
deposit being made by the appellant/transport Corporation, the respondents/
claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount by filing appropriate application.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with
the above modification. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.2.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The Principal District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Erode
2. The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 45, Moore Street, Erode
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2672 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.2672 of 2013
23.2.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
