Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Subramaniam on 6 January, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Nagercoil Region, Nagercoil ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Subramaniam
2.Manikandan
3.Murugappan
4.Subramania Pillai
5.Petchiammal
6.Sri Kumaran Thambi
7.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. Through its Manager
Nagercoil ... Respondents
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Award made in M.C.O.P.No.
44 of 2003, dated 09.09.2004, on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji for R1, R2 & R5
R3 & R4 – Died
No appearance for R6
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for R7
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Award, dated 09.09.2004, passed in M.C.O.P.No.44 of 2003, by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil.
2. The sons of the deceased Murugan alias Sankaranarayana Pillai
filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to
the claimants, the deceased was a flower merchant and on 31.12.2002 at
09.30 a.m., he travelled in an Auto bearing registration TN74 Y4174 along
with his goods (flower). At that time, a Bus belonging to the appellant –
Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and rammed the
Auto. In the accident, the driver of the Auto died on the spot and the Auto
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
was also completely got damaged. The deceased, who sustained grievous
injuries, was immediately taken to C.S.I.Hospital, Neyyur and the Doctor
declared him brought dead and hence, a complaint was lodged and the same
was registered at Eranial Police Station in Crime No.1182 of 2002 under
Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C., against the driver of the Bus. The
claimants have also impleaded the parents of the deceased as respondents 3
and 4 and the owner and insurer of the Auto respondents 5 and 6 and in the
claim petition.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses and
marked ten documents and on the side of the Transport Corporation, the
driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
4. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the
Tribunal held that the driver of the Bus was responsible for the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.6,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the
present civil miscellaneous appeal.
5. Heard Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant – Insurance Company; Mr.C.K.M.Apaji, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 1, 2 & 5 and Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
appearing for the seventh respondent and carefully perused the materials
available on record.
6. A perusal of the records would reveal that P.W.2 – Saraswathi was
examined as eyewitness to the accident and she has stated that on
31.12.2002, at 09.30 a.m., the Bus belonging to the appellant – Transport
Corporation came in a high speed and hit against the Auto, in which the
deceased was travelling and after ramming the Auto, it also dashed against a
road-side compound wall. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.2, the claimants
produced Ex.P1 – Copy of First Information Report, Ex.P2 – Copy of Sketch,
Ex.P3 – Copy of Observation Mahazar, Ex.P4 – Copy of Motor Vehicle
Inspector's Report and Ex.P7 – Copy of Charge Sheet, which show that a
criminal case was registered against the driver of the Bus. R.W.1 –
Murugappan, driver of the Bus, in his evidence, has deposed that when he
was driving the Bus slowly and carefully, the driver of the Auto, without any
signal, turned the vehicle and dashed against the bumper of the Bus.
However, rejecting the evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal, in my view, has rightly
held that the driver of the Bus was responsible for the accident.
7. P.W.1 – Manikandan, in his evidence, has deposed that his father
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing flower business and he also
produced Ex.P10 – Bill Books to show that the deceased was doing flower
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
business. But, no specific income was stated in Ex.P10. Hence, the Tribunal
has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd
for his personal and living expenses, Rs.3,000/- was taken as contribution to
the family and accordingly, the yearly income was arrived at Rs.36,000/-
(Rs.3,000/- X 12). Ex.P6 – Copy of Postmortem Report shows that the
deceased was 44 years old at the time of accident and hence, the Tribunal, by
applying multiplier “15”, awarded Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.36,000/- X 15) towards
loss of income. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards
mental agony; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.20,000/-
towards loss of future life; Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.6,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as
compensation, which in my considered opinion cannot be said to be excessive
or exorbitant and hence, the Award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant
any interference of this Court.
8. In that view, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. Since the appeal is dismissed, the appellant – Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their share in the award
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment made by
the Tribunal. It is seen that the fourth respondent died pending this appeal.
Hence, the fifth respondent / wife of the fourth respondent is entitled for the
share of the fourth respondent and accordingly, she is permitted to withdraw
the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
06.01.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
To:
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nagercoil.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.255 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
06.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
