The General Manager vs Velmurugan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1749 Mad

                                                                      C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 27.01.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                              C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020
                                                      and
                                              C.M.P.No.6568 of 2020
                   The General Manager
                   M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport
                     Corporation
                   (Kumbakonam Division-II) Ltd.
                   Periyamilaguparai, Trichy-1.                             ... Appellant


                                                      Vs.
                   1.Velmurugan

                   2.Minor.Subash

                   3.Minor.Karunya
                   (Minors are represented by their
                   natural guardian father Velmurugan)

                   4.Amutha

                   5.The Branch Manager
                   M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
                   Branch Office-III
                   No.19/1, Kalpana complex
                   Birds road, Cantonment
                   Trichy-620 001.                                         .. Respondents


                   1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                      C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020


                   Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

                   Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2019 made

                   in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

                   Principal District Court, Perambalur.


                                             For Appellant     : Mr.D.Venkatachalam

                                             For R1 to R3      : Mr.T.Gobinath

                                                       JUDGMENT

This matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 28.08.2019

made in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.

2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is 3rd respondent in

M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Principal District Court, Perambalur. The respondents 1 to 3 filed the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the

death of one V.Kavitha, who died in the accident that took place on

12.02.2014.

3.According to the respondents 1 to 3 on the date of accident, i.e., on

12.02.2014 at about 8.50 a.m., while the deceased Kavitha was travelling as a

pillion rider in a two wheeler belonging to the 4th respondent, which was

driven by one Durai, husband of the 4th respondent, on Jayankondam –

Chidambaram Road from East to West direction, near Pudhuchavadi Main

Road, the rider of the two wheeler overtook the lorry, which was proceeding

in front of the above said two wheeler, the driver of the bus, which was

coming in the opposite direction from West to East direction, drove the same

in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler and caused

the accident. In the accident, both the deceased Kavitha and rider of the two

wheeler sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3

filed the above claim petition claiming compensation as against the 4th

respondent, owner of the motorcycle, 5th respondent, insurer of the

motorcycle and the appellant/Transport Corporation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying

the averments made in the claim petition and stated that while the driver of

the bus was driving the same in a careful manner from West to East direction

from Jayankondam to Kattumannarkudi, near Pudhuchavadi Main Road, the

rider of the two wheeler, which was coming in the opposite direction i.e.,

from the East to West direction, after overtaking the lorry, proceeded to

wrong side and on seeing this, the driver of the bus stopped the bus on the

extreme left side of the mud road. The rider of the two wheeler rode the same

in a rash and negligent manner dashed on the front right side of the bus

inspite of alert given by the driver of the bus and invited the accident. The

driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. Immediately after the

accident, F.I.R. was registered against the rider of the two wheeler. The rider

of the motorcycle did not possess valid driving license. Therefore, the

appellant/Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the

respondents 1 to 3. The appellant has also denied the age, avocation and

income of the deceased. In any event, the compensation claimed by the

respondents 1 to 3 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, husband of the deceased,

examined himself as P.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to

P7. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined five witnesses as R.W.1 to

R.W.5 and marked 14 documents as Exs.R1 to R14. The 4th respondent filed

M.C.O.P.No.112 of 2014 claiming compensation for the death of her

husband, the rider of the two wheeler. By the award dated 08.01.2016, the

Tribunal held that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident and

directed the appellant to pay compensation to the 4th respondent, Amutha and

her two minor children. Against the said judgment dated 08.01.2016 made in

M.C.O.P.No.112 of 2014, the appellant/Transport Corporation filed an appeal

in C.M.A.No.33 of 2017. This Court by judgment dated 09.01.2017

confirmed the award of the Tribunal. The decree and judgment of

C.M.A.No.33 of 2017 dated 09.01.2017 were marked as Exs.C1 and C2

respectively.

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.1039 of 2020

directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,82,000/- as compensation to the

respondents 1 to 3.

7.Against the said award dated 28.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.271 of

2014, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present

appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

8.Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation raised a ground with regard to negligence, at the time of

arguments, he restricted his arguments only with regard to quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation contended that the respondents 1 to 3 have stated that the

deceased was owning beauty parlor and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per

month. The respondents 1 to 3 have not produced any document to prove the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any material

evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in fixing a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is on

the higher side. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads

are excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3

contended that the Tribunal fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.9,000/- per month

as notional income of the deceased. The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to

3 and perused the entire materials on record.

12.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of

the respondents 1 to 3 that the deceased was owning a beauty parlor and was

earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed

Ex.P5/seminar certificate to prove the avocation of the deceased. The

respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any document to show the income of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

deceased. In the absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal fixed a sum

of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is

of the year 2014 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The

Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 37 years as per Ex.P7/Transfer

Certificate, which is proper. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-,

Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and

loss of estate, which are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby

confirmed. There is no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal

warranting interference by this Court.

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

sum of Rs.15,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the

respondents 1 to 3 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 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw his

respective share of the award amount, on the basis of apportionment fixed by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020

the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if

any, already withdrawn. The shares of the minor respondents 2 and 3 are

directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minors

attain majority. The 1st respondent, father of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is

permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the

welfare of the minor respondents 2 and 3. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

27.01.2021 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.1039 of 2020

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

Kj

C.M.A.No.1039 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.6568 of 2020

27.01.2021

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