Madras High Court
Vaiyapuri vs The Managing Director on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.M.A. No.2792 of 2011
1.Vaiyapuri
2.Lakshmi
3.Vennila
4.Minor Selvaraj .. Appellants
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Salem. .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
25.11.2009, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2266 of 2008, on the file of the Sub
Court, Tiruchengode
For Appellant : Mr. .Kulanthaivel
For Respondents : Mr.D.Raghu
_____
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants
against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009, made in M.C.O.P.
No.266 of 2008, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode for
enhancement of compensation.
2.The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P. No.266 of 2008, on
the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode have filed the claim petition
before the tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- , restricted to
Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation for the death of Seethammale him in the
accident that took place on 11.07.2004.
3. Brief facts of the case is that on 11.07.2004 at about 4.10pm,
the deceased Sithammal, her husband Vaiyapuri and her daughter
Vennila went to Muthu Maligai Shop for purchasing grocery items. After
purchase, when they were standing in front of the above said shop, at
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
the time the driver of the respondent Corporation bus bearing Reg.No.
TN27 N 0976, who came from Tiruchengode to Anangur, drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules, hit the
said Sithammal and ran over the body of the said Sithammal. Due to
the said accident, the said Sithammal died in the spot itself. The
accident had occurred only due to rash and neligent driving of the driver
of the Transportation Corporation Bus, hence the appellants, being the
legal heirs of the deceased Sithammal have filed the claim petition,
claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, restricted to Rs.3,00,000/-. The
tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has fixed
the liability on the driver of the respondent Corporation Bus and directed
to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation by the respondent
Corporation. Aggreived by the said award passed by the tribunal, the
claimants/appellants herein have preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submitted that the tribunal ought to have award the entire
compensation amount of Rs.4,88,000/- determined as per the evidence
and ought not to have restricted the award as claimed by the claimants.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
tribunal ought to have been awarded a proper, just and reasonable
compensation for the death of the deceased if the tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimants are entitled the amount morethan the
claim amount, though the claimants restricted their claim at the time of
filing the claim petition. Hence prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
transport corporation submitted that the tribunal after considering the
oral and documentary evidence, has rightly awarded the entire
compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as restricted by the claimants.
Therefore, the claimants cannot make grounds for additional
compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and transport corporation and on
perusal of materials available on record, this Court needs to answer the
following point;
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
Whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation. If
so,what amount?
7. Before the tribunal, the claimants examined 3 witnesses P.W.1
to PW3 and and marked 8 documents as Exs.A1 to A8. On the side of
the respondent corporation one Jayaprakash was examined as RW1 and
no documents were marked on their side.
8. Insofar as the compensation determined by the tribunal, the
claimants without any proof, have claimed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/-, but the tribunal has fixed the monthly income
at Rs.4500/- by observing that the deceased could have earned
Rs.150/- per day. By adopting multiplier 13 and deducting 1/3 towards
personal and living expenses, has calculated the loss of income at
Rs.4,68,000/-, which according to this Court is resaonable. Futher the
compensation awarded by the tribunal for Funeral expenses at
Rs.5,000/- and for Loss of Love and Affection at Rs.15,000/- are also
found reasonable and the claimants are entitled for the said
compensation.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants is that the tribunal ought to have been awarded a
proper, just and reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased
when the claim under the relevant provisions of the Motr Vehicles Act is
not required the strict rule of pleadings and evidence as decided by the
various ruligs of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported
in 2020(1)TNMAC 449 (DB) in the case of Manikandan Vs
P.Palani. The relevant portion is extracted below;
31. Apart from that, this Court has to consider the
beneficial nature of the legislation. Chapter X to XII of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 were incorporated by the
Parliament for the benefit of innocent motor accidents
victims. The beneficial nature of the Act has been
declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of
cases including in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (1) TN MAC 104 (SC) :
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
2004 (2) SCC 297 (IV Judges Bench), in Ningamma
and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009
(2) TN MAC 169 (SC) : 2009 ACJ 2020 and in Sohan
Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, AIR 1996 SC 2627. This
Court is duty bound to keep in mind the social welfare
and beneficial legislation, while dealing with claims
under the act. Technicalities should be divorced when
deciding the matter arising out of Motor Vehicles Act
claims and justice should be rendered completely. The
compensation awarded should be fair and reasonable
and should not be arbitrary or very low. In an
endeavour to render justice only, this Court awards
compensation more than claimed by the claimants in
the Petition.
32. This Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act can re-appreciate the whole evidence to decide
the matter. This Court draws support for the aforesaid
proposition from the Apex Court judgment in Smt.
Thokchom Onger Sangeetha v. Oriental Insurance Co.,
2008 (1) TN MAC 59 (SC): AIR 2008 SC 245. It is
settled law that an Appeal is the continuation of
original proceedings and this Court can decide the
matter independently and award "Just compensation".
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
33. Under Order 41, Rule 33 read with section 151 of
Civil Procedure Code, in order to render justice this
Court can award more compensation based on the
evidence. The power and the discretion are vested
with this Court to enhance the amount according to
the facts of the case, if the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is not "just". Even in the absence of any
Appeal/Cross-Appeal by the claimants, this Court can
enhance the compensation in this Appeal preferred by
the Insurer. The aforesaid proposition has been
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in -
(1) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh And Others,
2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 274.
(2)Mahant Dhangir And Another v. Madan Mohan
And Others, AIR 1938 SC 54.
(3) State Of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, 1998 (8)
SCC 222.
(4) The APSRTC And Another v. Rama Devi And
Others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 234 (SC).
(5) M.D., Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v.
Kalavathi, 1988 ACJ 151.
(6) M.D., Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation
Ltd. v. Sundariammal, 1999 (2) CTC 560.
(7).M.D., Annai Sathya Corporation LTD. v.
Janardhanan, 2000 (2) CTC 272.”
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
11. In the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench by relying upon
the discussions and observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
has concluded that the under Section 173 of the Motor Vehilces Act, the
Court can re-appreciate the whole evidence to decide the matter.
Accordingly, enhanced the compensation based on the evidence in the
said case. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench that even in
the absence of any Appeal/Cross Appeal by the claimants, the Court
can enhance the compensation.
12. On the facts of the present case on hand, as discussed above,
the tribunal after detailed consideration of oral and documentary
evidence, has rightly determined the compensation of Rs.4,88,000/-
payable to the claimants/appellants herein. This Court also confirms the
said compensation determined by the tribunal. Since the compensation
was claimed by the claimants/ appellants for only at Rs.3,00,000/-, the
tribunal had awarded the said amount as compensation. With regard to
the contentions raised by the claimants /appellants herein that they
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
were entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation which was
denied to them, in vew of the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court cited supra and under the MV Act, there is no restrictions
that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding
the claim amount. The duty of the Tribunal/ Court is to award just
compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on
record. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that the
appellants/claimants are entitled for the additional compensation of
Rs.1,88,000/-, which had been determined by the tribunal based on the
evdiences and documents.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
compensation of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.4,88,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
14. The respondent /Trasnport Corporation is directed to deposit
the entire compensation amount modified by this Court along with
interest at 7.5% per annum within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
appellants /claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation as
modified by this Court along interest and costs as per the apportionment
orderd by the tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The
appellants are directed to pay court fee, if any, for the enhanced amount
of compensation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
25.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
speaking order/Non speaking order
ak
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2792 of 2011
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
To
1. The Sub Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tiruchengode
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A. No.2792 of 2011
25.01.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
