Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Shanmugam on 20 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.118 of 2021
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.
Periyamilaguparai
Tiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Shanmugam
2.S.Janaki
3.Minor. Nandhini
(Represented by her father and
natural guardian Shanmugam) ...Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 made
in M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Perambalur.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.Mageshkumar
for Mr.D.Raghu
JUDGMENT
This matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 06.03.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.
2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Perambalur. The respondents filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
one Marimuthu @ Subash, who died in the accident that took place on
18.07.2016.
3.According to the respondents, on the date of accident i.e., on
18.07.2016 at 10.00 p.m., while the deceased Marimuthu @ Subash was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle, which was driven by one
Karnakaran on Dindigul to Trichy Main Road, near Deeran nagar junction on
the extreme left side of the road, the bus belonging to the
appellant/Transport Corporation, which was coming in the opposite
direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling and caused the accident.
In the accident, the deceased Marimuthu @ Subash sustained fatal injuries
and died in the hospital on 19.07.2016. Hence, the respondents have filed the
above claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant.
4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying
the averments made by the respondents and contended that while the driver of
the bus was driving the bus from Trichy Central Bus Stand towards Dheeran
nagar Depo following traffic rules, the rider of the motorcycle, who was
coming from West to East direction on Dindugul road, without noticing the
oncoming vehicle, rode the same in a rash and negligent manner on the right
side of the road, hit against the front left side of the bus which was entering
the Bus Depo and caused the accident. The driver of the bus is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
responsible for the accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle. The rider, owner and insurer
of the motorcycle are not made as parties to the claim petition. Hence, the
claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the
appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. The
appellant has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In
any event, the compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, father of the deceased,
examined himself as P.W.1, one Ramachandran, an eye-witness to the
accident, was examined as P.W.2 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to
P3. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined one Marimuthu, the driver
of the bus as R.W.1 and did not file any documentary evidence.
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9,37,200/- as compensation to the
respondents.
7.Against the said award dated 06.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.1019
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 Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the
part of the driver of the bus solely based on the F.I.R. and charge sheet. The
accident has occurred only due to carelessness of the rider of the motorcycle.
The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus
and erroneously fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The
learned counsel further contended that the deceased was a student at the time
of accident and he was not employed. The Tribunal without considering the
same, erred in fixing a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the
deceased. The respondents have not produced any document to prove the age
of the deceased. 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.14 of 2021
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation and perused the entire 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 travelling as a pillion rider in a
motorcycle, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport
Corporation drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the motorcycle and caused the accident. To substantiate this contention, the
respondents examined the 1st respondent, father of the deceased as P.W.1 and
eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2, who deposed as per the averments made
in the claim petition and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the
driver of the bus as Ex.P1. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
appellant that the accident has occurred only due to negligence on the part of
the rider of the motorcycle. To substantiate this contention, the appellant
examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. The appellant did not examine any
independent eye-witness to prove their contention. The F.I.R. was registered
against the driver of the bus. The appellant or the driver of the bus have not
lodged any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle, in which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. The driver of the bus has also not
filed any objection to the contents of F.I.R. The Tribunal considering the
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, Ex.P1/F.I.R., held that the driver of the bus
belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation was responsible for the
accident and directed the appellant to pay compensation to the
respondents. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal
warranting interference by this Court.
11.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the contention
of the respondents that the deceased was doing part time job and was earning
a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. They failed to prove the same. In the absence
of any material evidence, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as
notional income of the deceased as claimed. The accident is of the year 2016
and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal
fixed the age of the deceased as 17 years at the time of accident as per
Ex.P2/death certificate. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the respondents have not produced any document to
prove the age of the deceased, the appellant did not file any objection to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
disprove Ex.P2/death certificate. The Tribunal after considering all the
materials on record, awarded compensation under different heads, which are
not excessive warranting interference by this Court.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.9,37,200/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award
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 and 2 are permitted to
withdraw their respective share of the award amount, on the basis of
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The share amount of the
minor/3rd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalised Banks till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent being
father of the minor/3rd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
20.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
kj
To
1.The Principal District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
Kj
C.M.A.No.14 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.118 of 2021
20.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
