Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Samikkannu on 4 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.1953 of 2020
and C.M.P. No.14447 of 2020
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
DO-II, Periyamilagupurai,
Trichy. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Samikkannu
2.K.Hemalatha
3.R.Rameshkumar
4.R.Dineshkumar .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020, made
in M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016, on the file of the Sessions Court, (Motor
_____
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.
For Appellant: Mr. D. Gopal
for M/s. D. Raghu
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020,
made in M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016, on the file of the Sessions Court, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016, on the
file of the Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur. The
respondents/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rajendran, who died in
the accident that took place on 3.09.2016.
3.According to the respondents, on the date of accident, when the
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
deceased was riding his Two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48-U-9689
at Kadai Veethi, Somarasampettai, Trichy in Hosur to Denkanikottai Road,
while waiting to cross the main road from South to North, the driver of the Bus
bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2930 belonging to the appellant-Transport
Corporation drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at hectic speed,
came to extreme right and dashed against the Two wheeler driven by the
deceased and caused the accident. The accident occurred due to negligent
driving by driver of the Bus. In the accident, the deceased succumbed to fatal
injuries. Hence, the respondents filed claim petition claiming compensation
against the appellant as owner of the Bus involved in the accident.
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondents in the claim petition.
According to the appellant, on the date of accident, the driver of the Bus
bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2930 was on its trip from Pothavur to
Chathiram bus stand. When the Bus came near Somarasampettai kadaiveethi 4
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
four road junction, the driver of the Bus following the rules of the Motor
Vehicles Act, slowed down the Bus to stop at the bus stand at left side. On
seeing the deceased coming from right side branch road in a rash and negligent
manner, the driver of the Bus in order to avert hitting the deceased, turned the
Bus to extreme left side of the road and stopped the Bus. The deceased unable
to control the speed of his Two wheeler, hit on the front right side of the Bus
and caused the accident. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
riding by the deceased. The respondents have to prove the age, avocation and
income of the deceased to claim compensation. In any event, the total
compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and prayed for dismissal
of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, eye
witness viz., Nataraj was examined as P.W.2 and 5 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P5. The appellant examined driver of the Bus as R.W.1, but did not
let in any evidence.
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by
driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and directed
the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.11,59,000/-, as compensation to the
respondents.
7.Against the said award dated 20.02.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.1113
of 2016, the appellant – Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation
contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of
Two wheeler by the deceased, without minding traffic rules, on the right side of
the Bus. The Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the driver of the Bus.
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
The respondents failed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In
the absence of any materials, the Tribunal erroneously fixed Rs.10,000/- per
month as notional income of the deceased and granted excessive amounts and
prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
9.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
10.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of the
respondents that while the deceased was waiting to cross the main road from
South to North, the driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant Transport
Corporation came to extreme right side and dashed against the Two wheeler in
which the deceased was waiting to cross the road and caused the accident. The
deceased was thrown away and sustained injuries and died. To substantiate
their contention, the respondents examined P.W.2 – eye witness and marked
FIR as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the Bus. On the other
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
hand, it is the contention of the appellant that driver of the Bus was driving the
Bus carefully by sounding horn to stop the Bus at the left side of the bus stop.
The driver of the Bus noticing the rider of the Two wheeler coming from the
right side of the road in a rash and negligent manner, turned the Bus to the
extreme left side of the road and stopped the Bus. The rider of the Two wheeler
due to his rash and negligent riding, unable to control the speed, dashed against
the front side of the stationed Bus and caused the accident. To prove their case,
the appellant examined driver of the Bus as R.W.1. From the materials on
record, it is seen that FIR was registered against the driver of the Bus. The
driver of the Bus or the appellant did not lodge any complaint against the
deceased or file any objection to the FIR being registered against the driver of
the Bus. The appellant has not examined any independent eye witness in
support of their case. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 and FIR,
held that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of
the Bus. There is no error in the finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference
by this Court.
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
11.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents
claimed that deceased was aged 51 years, working as a Mason and was earning
a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. They failed to prove the same. In the absence
of any materials, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional
income. The accident is of the year 2016. The notional income of Rs.10,000/-
per month fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal fixed age of the
deceased at 51 years, based on post mortem certificate, granted 10%
enhancement towards future prospects, applied multiplier '11' and granted
compensation towards loss of dependency, apart from awarding a sum of
Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. The quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is not excessive, warranting interference by this Court.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,59,000/- together with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount 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.1113 of 2016. On such deposit, the
respondents are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount 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. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
04.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.1953 of 2020
04.01.2021
_____
http://www.judis.nic.in
