Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Samikkannu on 4 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.1953 of 2020
and C.M.P. No.14447 of 2020
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
DO-II, Periyamilagupurai,
Trichy. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Samikkannu
2.K.Hemalatha
3.R.Rameshkumar
4.R.Dineshkumar .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020, made
in M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016, on the file of the Sessions Court, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.
_____
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
For Appellant
: Mr. D. Gopal
for M/s. D. Raghu
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020,
made in M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016, on the file of the Sessions Court, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016, on the
file of the Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.
The respondents/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rajendran, who died in
the accident that took place on 3.09.2016.
3.According to the respondents, on the date of accident, when the
deceased was riding his Two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48-U-9689
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
at Kadai Veethi, Somarasampettai, Trichy in Hosur to Denkanikottai Road,
while waiting to cross the main road from South to North, the driver of the
Bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2930 belonging to the appellant-
Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at
hectic speed, came to extreme right and dashed against the Two wheeler
driven by the deceased and caused the accident. The accident occurred due to
negligent driving by driver of the Bus. In the accident, the deceased
succumbed to fatal injuries. Hence, the respondents filed claim petition
claiming compensation against the appellant as owner of the Bus involved in
the accident.
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondents in the claim petition.
According to the appellant, on the date of accident, the driver of the Bus
bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2930 was on its trip from Pothavur to
Chathiram bus stand. When the Bus came near Somarasampettai kadaiveethi
4 four road junction, the driver of the Bus following the rules of the Motor
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
Vehicles Act, slowed down the Bus to stop at the bus stand at left side. On
seeing the deceased coming from right side branch road in a rash and
negligent manner, the driver of the Bus in order to avert hitting the deceased,
turned the Bus to extreme left side of the road and stopped the Bus. The
deceased unable to control the speed of his Two wheeler, hit on the front right
side of the Bus and caused the accident. The accident occurred only due to
rash and negligent riding by the deceased. The respondents have to prove the
age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim compensation. In any
event, the total compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1,
eye witness viz., Nataraj was examined as P.W.2 and 5 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The appellant examined driver of the Bus as R.W.1,
but did not let in any evidence.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving
by driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.11,59,000/-, as compensation to the
respondents.
7.Against the said award dated 20.02.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.1113
of 2016, the appellant – Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and
negligent riding of Two wheeler by the deceased, without minding traffic
rules, on the right side of the Bus. The Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence
on the driver of the Bus. The respondents failed to prove the avocation and
income of the deceased. In the absence of any materials, the Tribunal
erroneously fixed Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
and granted excessive amounts and prayed for setting aside the award of the
Tribunal.
9.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
10.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of
the respondents that while the deceased was waiting to cross the main road
from South to North, the driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant
Transport Corporation came to extreme right side and dashed against the Two
wheeler in which the deceased was waiting to cross the road and caused the
accident. The deceased was thrown away and sustained injuries and died. To
substantiate their contention, the respondents examined P.W.2 – eye witness
and marked FIR as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the Bus.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant that driver of the Bus
was driving the Bus carefully by sounding horn to stop the Bus at the left side
of the bus stop. The driver of the Bus noticing the rider of the Two wheeler
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
coming from the right side of the road in a rash and negligent manner, turned
the Bus to the extreme left side of the road and stopped the Bus. The rider of
the Two wheeler due to his rash and negligent riding, unable to control the
speed, dashed against the front side of the stationed Bus and caused the
accident. To prove their case, the appellant examined driver of the Bus as
R.W.1. From the materials on record, it is seen that FIR was registered against
the driver of the Bus. The driver of the Bus or the appellant did not lodge any
complaint against the deceased or file any objection to the FIR being
registered against the driver of the Bus. The appellant has not examined any
independent eye witness in support of their case. The Tribunal considering
the evidence of P.W.2 and FIR, held that accident occurred only due to rash
and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. There is no error in the finding of
the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court.
11.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
respondents claimed that deceased was aged 51 years, working as a Mason
and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. They failed to prove the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
same. In the absence of any materials, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month as notional income. The accident is of the year 2016. The notional
income of Rs.10,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The
Tribunal fixed age of the deceased at 51 years, based on post mortem
certificate, granted 10% enhancement towards future prospects, applied
multiplier '11' and granted compensation towards loss of dependency, apart
from awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. The quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive, warranting
interference by this Court.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,59,000/- together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is
confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.1113 of 2016. On such deposit,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
the respondents are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount
with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed
by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by
filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
04.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1953 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.1953 of 2020
04.01.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
