The Managing Director vs Gnanamani
2021 Latest Caselaw 1552 Mad

                                                                                       CMA No.57 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 25.01.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                                  CMA No. 54 of 2022
                                                         And
                                                 C.M.P.No. 371 of 2022

                     The Managing Director
                     Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
                     Chickballapur Division, Chickballapur
                     Karnataka State – 562 101.            ... Appellant/Respondent

                                                            Vs

                     1.           Gnanamani

                     2.           Kavitha                        ... Respondents/Petitioners

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.
                     Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.02.2021 passed in
                     M.C.O.P.No. 1147 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                     Tribunal (Special District Court), Krishnagiri.
                                                            ***
                                            For Appellant     : T.Thiyagarajan




                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   CMA No.57 of 2022

                                                    JUDGMENT

The appellant Corporation challenges the award of a sum of

Rs.3,89,999/- granted for the death of one Natarajan in a road accident that

occurred on 26.01.2018. The claimants, who are the son and daughter of

said Natarajan, sought for compensation.

2. According to them, Natarajan was riding a cycle near

Kamalapuram Koot Road in Uthangarai to Mathur Main Road, the driver of

the bus owned by the appellant Corporation bearing Registration No. KA-

40-F-1416 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

him. As a result of the impact, Natarajan fell down and sustained serious

injuries on the head and died on the spot. Terming the negligence on the

part of the driver as the cause for the accident and consequent death of

Natarajan, the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.10/- lakhs.

3. In support of the claim that the driver was negligent, the

claimants relied upon the FIR lodged against him and the oral evidence of

PW-2 an eye witness to the accident. The driver of the bus was examined as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.57 of 2022

RW-1.

4. The Tribunal upon examination of the evidence on record

concluded that it was the negligence on part of the bus driver that caused

the accident. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the driver wherein he

had admitted that the FIR as well as the final report has been filed against

him. The Tribunal would also rely upon the fact that the management had

issued a memo to the driver for the accident and the mahazar plan shows

that the deceased was going extreme right side of the road. In view of the

admission of the driver as well as the evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal

concluded that the negligence was on the part of the bus driver.

5. On the quantum, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at

Rs.7,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, applied multiplier

'5' and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,79,999/- towards loss of dependency.

The Tribunal granted Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection and

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and future expenses.

6. Mr.T.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.57 of 2022

Corporation would contend that the negligence on the part of the driver of

the bus had not been established. He would also term the compensation

awarded as excessive.

7. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant.

8. I do not think the contentions of the learned counsel for the

appellant could be sustained. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence and

taken note of specific admission in the evidence to come to the conclusion

that it was the negligence of the driver that caused the accident. The

Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the police filed final report

against the driver and the Corporation had issued a memo to the driver of

the bus. I am therefore unable to fault the Tribunal for having come to the

conclusion that it is the negligence of the driver of the bus that resulted in

the accident.

9. On the quantum, I do not find any substance in the contention

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.57 of 2022

of the learned counsel. The Tribunal has adopted only Rs.7,000/- as monthly

notional income for the accident that took place in the year 2018. This

Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the monthly notional

income should be anywhere between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for the

accident that occurred in the year 2018.

11. I do not find any error in the Tribunal's award for a sum of

Rs.3,89,999/- as compensation. I do not see any merits in this Appeal and

therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

25.01.2022

Index:Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking order vsg

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

vsg

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.57 of 2022

To

1. Special District Court Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Krishnagiri.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

CMA No. 54 of 2022 And C.M.P.No. 371 of 2022

25.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis