Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Anjalai on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Chennai. .. Appellant/1st Respondent
vs.
1.Anjalai
2.Minor.Prabakaran
3.Minor.Parthiban
(Suo motu the respondents 2 & 3 declared as major and
guardianship discharged vide Court
Order dated 26.02.2021) ..Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4.The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Alines General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Madurai. .. 4th respondent/2nd Respondent
5.Mookaiah ..5th Respondent/3rd Respondent
6.M.Manikkam .. 6th respondent/4th respondent
7.M.Thiyagarajan .. 7th respondent/5th respondent
8.M.Ramaiah .. 8th respondent/6th respondent
9.Lakshmanan ..9th respondent/7th respondent
10.M.Subramani .. 10th respondent/8th respondent
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
11.Ponnazhagi .. 11th respondent/9th respondent
12.M.Narayanan .. 12th respondent/10th respondent
13.M.Mariappan .. 13th respondent/11th respondent
(Amended as per order in I.A.No.850/2009
dated 11.12.2009 respondents 4 to 11)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and award dated 23.09.2010
made in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2005 on the file of the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai
and praying for set aside the same.
For Appellant :Mr.Royce Immanuel
For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Rahamadullah
For RR5 to 9, 12 & 13: No appearance
For RR 4,10,11 : dismissed vide court order
dated 10.04.2019
JUDGMENT
This is a case of fatal accident. The claim petition was originally
filed by the wife and minor children of the deceased Murugesan. The
fifth respondent herein, namely, Mookaiah, who is the father of the
deceased, was impleaded as second respondent in the claim petition.
Pending claim petition, brothers of the deceased impleaded themselves as
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
respondents 4 to 11 in the claim petition. It appears that on the date of
filing of the claim petition, the mother of the deceased was no more and
hence, she was not impleaded. The respondents 4 to 11 were impleaded
on the ground that they are entitled to claim compensation in the share of
their mother.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on 07.03.2005 the deceased
Murugesan was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-55-
K-6792 from Trichy to Pudukkottai. When he was proceeding near
Mathoor, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-1-N-6625 owned by the
appellant transport corporation rammed his two-wheeler and caused his
death. The claimants further stated that the deceased was working as an
Administrative Commercial Assistant in the Keeranur Electricity Board
and he was paid Rs.6,897/- per month. The claimants are the only
dependents of the deceased Murugesan.
3. The appellant resisted the claim petition disputing the age,
avocation and the manner of accident in their counter. It is specifically
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
stated that when the bus was proceeding slowly, the deceased was
coming in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly tried to over take
another vehicle and in the process, he fell down and sustained injury.
4. A perusal of the records shows that the claimants examined
P.W.2 as an eye witness to the incident and he spoke about the manner of
accident. In support thereof, Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-charge-sheet have been
filed to show that the criminal case was proceeded against the driver of
the offending vehicle.
5. After analysing the evidences of P.W.1, R.W.1 and R.W.2, the
Tribunal rejected the evidence of the appellant and held that the accident
took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. It was
established before the Tribunal that the bus hit behind the motorcycle and
caused the death of the deceased, so, the Tribunal applied the principles
of “RES IPSA LOQUITUR”. Hence, the finding on negligence is
confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
6. P.W.3 an official from the Electricity Board has stated that the
deceased was earning Rs.6,897/- at the time of accident. Ex.P.6 is the
salary certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Board,
Keeranur. The Tribunal has rounded off the income as Rs.6,900/- after
deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, has taken the monthly income
at Rs.4,600/- and by applying multiplier '16' awarded a sum of
Rs.8,83,200/-. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that as per the
decision of the Apex Court reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC)
[National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi], the claimants are
entitled for future prospects also, but it has not been given in this case.
The Tribunal has awarded another sum of Rs.70,800/- as conventional
damages. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,54,000/- as
compensation. The quantum has been arrived based on the evidence and
hence, I find no reason to interfere with the finding on quantum also.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants
that the respondents 4 to 11 in the claim petition and the respondents 6 to
13 herein were impleaded as legal heirs of the mother of the deceased. It
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
is no doubt, they are the legal heirs of the mother of the deceased
Murugesan. But the fact remains that on the date of filing of the claim
petition, the mother of the deceased was no more. The claimants have let
in evidence to show that they are only dependents of the deceased. On
the other hand, subsequent impleaded parties have not given any
material to show that they are the dependants of the deceased, but the
Tribunal awarded Rs.33,000/- each to the impleaded parties. When the
wife and minor children of the deceased have proved that they are the
dependents of the deceased, awarding of Rs.33,000/- each in total
Rs.2,64,000/- to the impleaded respondents cannot be sustained. Hence,
the award of the Tribunal against the respondents 4 to 11 in the claim
petition and respondents 6 to 13 herein, is set aside. The father of the
deceased, the fifth respondent herein is entitled for Rs.40,000/- and the
remaining amount of Rs.9,14,000/- shall be equally shared by the
original claimants.
8. By this time, the claimants 2 & 3/Respondents 2 & 3 also should
have become major and hence, the respondents 2 & 3 herein are suo
motu declared as major.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
9. In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to
deposit the entire award amount, with accrued interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the
respondents 1 to 3/Claimants 1 to 3 and the third respondent/fifth
respondent herein are permitted to withdraw their share along with
interest and cost by making necessary application before the Tribunal.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 26.02.2021
Internet:Yes/No
am
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD) No.1257 of 2011
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
