Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Mrs.Chitra on 5 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 05.01.2021
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tami Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant
in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
/versus/
1. Mrs.Chitra,
2. Govindasamy,
3. Radha,
All are residing at
No.4, Egappan Street,
Old Washermanpet, Chennai. ... Respondents
in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
Prayer in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2015
made in M.C.O.P.no.4897 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
1. Mrs.Chitra,
2. Govindasamy,
3. Radha,
All are residing at
No.4, Egappan Street,
Old Washermanpet, Chennai. ... Appellants
in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017
/versus/
The Managing Director,
Tami Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ...Respondents
in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017
Prayer in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2015
made in M.C.O.P.No.4897 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Kathiresan
in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017
For Respondent : Mr.K.Kathiresan
in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through video conference)
Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants and the Learned Counsel
for the respondents.
2. The Appeal in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016 is filed by the Transport
Corporation aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Appeal in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 is filed by the claimants being not satisfied
with the quantum of compensation.
3. The facts of the case is that one Thiru. Balaji, aged 22 years old
bachelor while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-09-AX-8593 along
the Sydenhams Road, Perambur, the SETC lorry bearing registration No.TNL-9969
hit the motorcycle and caused grievous injury to the motorcycle rider. The accident
victim was taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai but he succumb to the
injury on the next day. The parents of the deceased and sister has filed claim petition
seeking a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. According to the claim petition, the deceased was
working as driver in Apollo Hospital and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month.
Since he died at young age of 22 years, they have lost dependency and his income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
4. The Transport Corporation has filed counter stating that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider. The Transport Corporation
lorry driver was carefully driving the lorry by observing all the traffic rules and
regulations. Near A.P.Timber Traders, Sydenhmas Road, the motorcyclist coming on
the same direction hit the cyclist and fell down in the road. The motorcyclist and the
pillion rider fell before the lorry. The motorcyclist went under the wheels of the
lorry. The F.I.R was wrongly registered by the police against the driver of the
Transport Corporation lorry, based on the wrong information given to the police,
hence measures taken to cancel the F.I.R.
5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner/Chitra and one Thiru. Senthil
Kumar eye witness to the accident were examined. 7-exhibits were marked on the
side of petitioners. On behalf of the respondents one Thiru.S.Natarajan, Driving
Trainer attached to the Transport Corporation was examined as R.W.1. No
documentary evidence relied by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal, on consideration the first information recorded by the
police held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the Transport
Corporation driver. The evidence of R.W.1 Thiru.S.Natarajan, Driving Training
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
Officer did not inspire confidence of the Tribunal since the narration of the accident
by R.W.1 was contrary to the documentary evidence Ex.P.1 and ocular evidence of
P.W.2.
7. Regarding the income of the deceased, since there was no evidence to
show that the deceased was working as driver in the Apollo Hospital as claimed in
the petition, the Tribunal has notionally fixed the income at Rs.7,000/- including
future prospects. While applying multiplier, the Tribunal has adopted the age of the
mother and fixed multiplicant 15, a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was awarded as
compensation to the claimants which was to be apportioned between them in the
ratio of i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- (1st claimant/mother), Rs.1,00,000/- (2nd claimant/father)
and Rs.50,000/- (3rd claimant sister) with 7.5% interest from the date of numbering
(23.11.2011) the petition, till the date of deposit.
8. The Appeal in C.M.A.No.397 of 2016 is filed by the Transport
Corporation questioning the quantum on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to
have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 for fixing the negligence on the lorry driver
since he was not eye witness to the occurrence. There is no evidence to show that
the deceased was employed in the Apollo Hospital as driver. Fixation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
Rs.7,000/- as notional income inclusive of future prospect is excessive and
exorbitant.
9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Transport
Corporation/Appellant would emphasis that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the
evidence of R.W.1 who is the eye witness to the occurrence and has spoken about the
manner in which the accident occurred. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the
Transport Corporation would submit that the award has to be set aside since the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who had no valid driving
license and invited the accident due to his rash and negligent driving.
10. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants who are
the appellants in C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 would submit that the claimants are the
parents and sisters of the deceased Thiru.Balaji. The Tribunal had fixed a merger
sum of Rs.7,000/- inclusive of future prospects and also erred in fixing the multiplier
as 15, taking the age of the mother instead of taking the age of the deceased. Further,
the Learned Counsel would submit that the I.D. card of the deceased Ex.P.7 and oral
evidence of P.W.1 regarding the occupation of the deceased has been overlooked by
the Tribunal. Hence, prayed the compensation has to be enhanced by fixing fair and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
just compensation.
11. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and the
Learned Counsel for the respondents.
12. It is a case of fatal accident occurred on 27.09.2011. The victim was
22 years old bachelor. He died on the next day of the accident, in view of the
multiple injury sustained in the road accident. While considering the negligence and
cause for accident, the Tribunal has relied upon the F.I.R and ocular evidence of
P.W.2. Though R.W.1 has spoken contrary to evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal has
given weightage to the F.I.R, which is in consonance to the ocular evidence of
P.W.2. This Court finds no error in the finding of the Tribunal, regarding the
negligence.
13. As far as the quantum, in the absence of any document to prove
employment except the I.D card Ex.P.7, there is no reason to accept the plea of the
claimants regarding the loss of income. The specific case of the claimants is that the
deceased was working as a driver in the Apollo Hospital and earning a sum of
Rs.9,000/- per month. Neither the driving license of the deceased nor income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
certificate for the deceased produced before the Court. In fact, whether the deceased
had valid driving license at all to be a professional driver is a question not been
answered by the claimants.
14. The Transport Corporation in their counter had taken specific plea
about non-possession of the valid driving license. The another fact which has not
been properly elicited by the claimants through evidence is that, both in the F.I.R as
well as in the claim petition, it is specifically stated that the deceased was riding the
two wheeler with the pillion rider. The pillion rider, could have been better witness
to speak about the accident and whether the rider who died in the accident had a
valid driving license.
15. Be it as it may, as far as the income is concerned, there should have
been some basic document to show that the deceased was a professional driver and
earning his livelihood as a driver. In the absence of evidence, this Court taking into
consideration the age of the victim the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at
Rs.7,000/- inclusive of the future prospects, is enhanced to Rs.8,000/- inclusive of
future prospect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
16. Regarding application of multiplier, the contention of the Learned
Counsel appearing for the claimants that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the
multiplier “15” based on the age of the claimant instead of “18” based on the age of
the victim is a valid contention and has to be upheld.
17. On over all appreciation of evidence, this Court finds that the
claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was gainfully employed as a driver
in the Apollo Hospital and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/-. At the same time, the
contention of the Transport Corporation that the deceased at the time of accident had
no valid driving license, not proved. Therefore, balancing the evidence and to award
fair compensation, the loss income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,000/- per month
inclusive of future prospects, after deducting 50% towards personal expenditure,
multiplier “18” applied. Thus, taking note of the age of the deceased, the award of
the Tribunal is modified as below:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Award passed by this
Nos. Court
1. Loss of income Rs.8,64,000/-
(Rs.8,000 inclusive of F.P x 12 ) – 50% (deduction) x 18
2. Loss of love and affection (Claimants 1 to 3) Rs.60,000/-
(Rs.20,000 x 3)
3. Transport to Hospital Rs.5,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.9,59,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
18. The award of the Tribunal is modified from Rs.7,50,000/- to
Rs.9,59,000/-. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount in the
M.C.O.P. account with 7.5% from the date of numbering the petition (23.11.2011)
till the date of realization, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
19. The compensation shall be apportioned by the claimants as below:-
1st claimant/mother Rs.5,00,000/-
2nd claimant/father Rs.3,00,000/-
3rd claimant/sister Rs.1,59,000/-
20. The Learned Counsel for the Transport Corporation submits that the
award amount has already been deposited in the M.C.O.P account pursuant to the
order of this Court.
21. In such circumstances, the Transport Corporation/Appellant is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount, as modified under this order passed by this
Court, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The claimants are permitted to withdrawn the award amount with
proportionate interest on filing proper application, less the amount already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
withdrawn by them.
22. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.397 of 2016 is
dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.512 of 2017 is partly allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.01.2021
bsm
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order.
To:-
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
bsm
C.M.A.No.397 of 2016
& C.M.A.No.512 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.2997 of 2016
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
