Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs M.Selvi on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
and
C.M.P. No.140 of 2021
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd,
Perambalur Branch, Perambalur.
..Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1.M.Selvi
W/o.Late. Marimuthu
2.M.Anandhan
S/o.Late. Marimuthu ..Respondents/Petitioners
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
03.01.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.672 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.
For Appellant :: Mr.D.Gopal
for Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondents :: Mr.T.Gobinath
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree dated 03.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.672 of 2017 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.672 of 2017 on the
file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court,
Perambalur. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the said claim
petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
one Sumathi, who died in the accident that took place on 07.07.2017.
3.According to the respondents 1 and 2, on 07.07.2017, at about 4.30
hours, the deceased Sumathi was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-45-N-3762 belongs to the appellant. At that time, the
bus crossed 1st platform situated inside the bus stand and was proceeding
towards 2nd platform. While so the driver of the bus, without noticing the
speed break ran over the speed breaker without applying brakes. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
impact of jerking, the said Sumathi, among others, who was sitting in
backside seat, got dashed against the rod and fell down inside the bus and
sustained severe head injuries. Immediately she was taken to the Kilpauk
Government Hospital. But on the way she succumbed to the accident
injuries. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the above claim
petition claiming compensation.
4.Per contra, on behalf of the Transport Corporation, a counter
affidavit has been filed, inter alia disputing the age, income and occupation
of the deceased as stated by the respondents and that the
claimants/respondents are not the legal heir of the deceased. The transport
Corporation, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, mother of the deceased,
examined herself as P.W.1 and one Mr.Duraisamy, was examined as P.W.2
and marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of the appellant,
RW1 was examined and no document was marked.
6.The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
negligent driving by the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus and
directed the appellant/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.27,30,000/-
as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2.
7.Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
vide award dated 03.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.672 of 2017 granting
compensation to the respondents 1 and 2, the appellant-Transport
Corporation has come forward with the present appeal.
8.Mr.D.Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in the
course of his arguments, submitted that the Tribunal had awarded excess
amount as compensation in favor of the claimants. According to the learned
counsel, at the time of accident the deceased was less than 40 years of age.
While so, the Tribunal ought to have added only 40% towards future
prospects for determining the loss of income. But in the present case, the
Tribunal awarded 50% of the amount towards future prospects which
resulted in awarding excess compensation in favor of the claimant.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for setting
aside the award passed by the Tribual and to reduce the quantum of
compensation awarded to the claimants proportionately.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
9.Per Contra, Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants had replied that the deceased Sumathi was working
as Senior Grade Revenue Inspector in the Office of the District Backward
Class and Minorities Welfare, Perambalur. She was in regular Government
service and was drawing a salary of Rs.20,846/- per month. The claimants
have also produced the documents relating to the earnings of the deceased.
Further at the time of accident, the deceased was less than 40 years. The
Tribunal, taking note of the prospects of the deceased and the promotional
avenues had she been alive, awarded 50% towards future prospects and for
this purpose, the Tribunal relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 and therefore, the learned counsel for
the respondents/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just, fair and proper and no interference is required and
hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as
the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
Points for Consideration – I
11.The only point arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the
Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants as pleaded
by the appellants?
12.The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal only questioning
the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants and not
questioning the liability of the Transport Corporation to pay the
compensation amount to the claimant.
13. It is prime contention raised on behalf of the appellant/Transport
Corporation in this appeal that the Tribunal proceeded to award the
compensation by adding 50% towards future prospectus of the deceased,
which resulted in granting excessive compensation.
14.Admittedly, at the time of accident, the deceased Sumathi was
aged 37 and it is not the case of the appellant that the deceased has no
prospects of earning more or she has no promotional avenue if she had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
alive. The appellant would only contend that instead of adding 40% as
future prospects, the Tribunal had added 50%. In this context, the learned
counsel for either side, have relied on the oft-quoted decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Others reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court
time and again reiterated that while determining the actual loss of income,
future prospects also have to be awarded while considering the nature of
avocation of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was working as
Senior Grade Revenue Inspector in the office of District Backward Class
and Minorities Welfare, Perambalur. The deceased was in regular service of
the Government. The deceased being a young Government servant, had
enormous prospects for promotion in her future. The Tribunal taking note of
the above, has added 50% of her actual income towards future prospects. On
perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's
case, no where it was mentioned that future prospects depends on the age of
the claimant or the deceased as the case may be, it depends on several
factors such as a the regular and continued service of the claimant or the
deceased whether in a private job or in a Government service. The object
behind awarding future prospects is to forecast the career and promotional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
prospects of the deceased to earn more. Taking into consideration all the
above aspects, particularly when the deceased was working in Government
service in a regular post, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation
towards loss of income by adding 50% towards future prospects. Even in
paragraph No. 59.4 of the Pranai Sethi's case, it was held that if the
deceased was working on a fixed salary, rate of 40% of income is
warranted. In the present case, the deceased Sumathi was in Government
service, on permanent roll. Therefore, on this score also, the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal by adding 50% towards future
prospects, is proper which requires no interference. Points for Consideration
– I is answered in favour of the respondents/claimants and against the
appellant/Insurance Company. Absolutely, we see no reason to interfere
with the award of the Tribunal in adding 50% towards future prospects. The
appeal has no merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
15.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a
sum of Rs.27,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents/claimants is confirmed. The appellant-State Transport
Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,30,000/- as compensation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
the respondents/claimants along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount along
with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, if any,
by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.P.S.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
gbi 25.01.2021
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court,
Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
R.SUBBIAH, J.
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
gbi
C.M.A.No.20 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.140 of 2021
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
