The Managing Director vs Murugammal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5135 Mad

                                                                          C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 26.02.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                              C.M.A.No.451 of 2021
                                                      and
                                              C.M.P.No.2857 of 2021

                   The Managing Director
                   Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                     Limited, No.37
                   Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.                               .. Appellant


                                                      Vs.

                   1.Murugammal
                   2.Sakthivel
                   3.Chandiran
                   4.Veerammal

                   5.Saravanan                                                .. Respondents


                   Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

                   Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018

                   made in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

                   Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet.


                   1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                      C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

                                             For Appellant     : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar


                                                       JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/Transport Corporation to set aside the award dated 21.08.2018

made in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet.

2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is 2nd respondent in

M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Sub Court, Udumalpet. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition

claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one

Murugan, who died in the accident that took place on 09.02.2013.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident

i.e., on 09.02.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., while the deceased Murugan was

riding in his TVS XL super on Palani to Udumalpet Main Road from East to

West direction on the extreme left side of the road, near Vayaloor Jagadeesh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

computer centre, the 5th respondent, the driver of the bus, who was coming in

the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from

West to East direction, hit on the two wheeler rode by the said Murugan and

caused the accident. In the accident, the said Murugan sustained fatal injuries

and died in the hospital on 24.02.2013. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed

the claim petition claiming compensation against the 5th respondent and the

appellant/Transport Corporation.

4.The 5th respondent, the driver of the bus, remained exparte before the

Tribunal.

5.The appellant/Transport corporation filed counter statement denying

the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 and contended that the

deceased Murugan, the rider of the two wheeler alone rode the same in a rash

and negligent manner and invited the accident. The 5th respondent, the driver

of the bus was not responsible for the accident. Mere filing of F.I.R. against

the driver of the bus is not a substantial piece of evidence to come to a

conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

driving by the driver of the bus. The rider of the two wheeler did not possess

valid driving license to ride the two wheeler. The owner and insurer of the

two wheeler are not made as parties to the claim petition and therefore, the

claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the

appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. The

appellant has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In

any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is

excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent, son of the deceased Murugan

examined himself as P.W.1, one Sureshkumar, eye-witness to the accident was

examined as P.W.2 and sixteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. The

appellant/Transport Corporation did not let in any oral and documentary

evidence.

7.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

the 5th respondent, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

Corporation and directed the appellant/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of

Rs.14,43,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

8.To set aside the said award dated 21.08.2018 made in

M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2015, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out

with the present appeal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation contended that the Tribunal failed to note that P.W.1, son of the

deceased has not seen the occurrence. Mere registering of F.I.R. against the

driver of the bus cannot be a ground for fixing negligence on him. The

learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal failed to note that no

valid document was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 to prove the age,

avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in fixing a sum of

Rs.7,000/- as monthly income of the deceased Murugan, which is excessive.

The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are excessive and

prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation and perused the entire materials available on record.

11.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of

the respondents 1 to 4 that while the deceased Murugan was riding in his two

wheeler, the 5th respondent, the driver of the bus belonging to the

appellant/Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner, hit against the two wheeler rode by the deceased and caused the

accident. To substantiate this contention, the 3rd respondent, son of the

deceased Murugan, examined himself as P.W.1, eye-witness to the accident

was examined as P.W.2 who deposed about the manner of the accident and

marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the bus.

The appellant/Transport Corporation has not examined the driver of the bus

or has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the evidence of the

respondents 1 to 4. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2

and F.I.R., held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent

driving by the 5th respondent, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant.

There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference

by this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

12.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the

respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased Murugan was working as an agricultural

coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of

accident. The respondents 1 to 4 failed to substantiate the said contention. In

the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income of

the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as notional

income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2013 and the monthly

income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The Tribunal fixed the age of the

deceased as 40 years as per Ex.P3/Post-mortem certificate, applied multiplier

'15', granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th

towards personal expenses and awarded compensation towards loss of

dependency, which is not excessive. The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is also not excessive warranting interference by this Court.

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

sum of Rs.14,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the

respondents 1 to 4 along with interest and costs is confirmed. The

appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if

any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw

their respective share of the award amount, as per the apportionment fixed by

the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if

any, already withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed. No costs.

26.02.2021

Index : Yes / No kj To

1.The Subordinate Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Udumalpet.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.451 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

Kj

C.M.A.No.451 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.2857 of 2021

26.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/