Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Rajammal on 8 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14741 of 2020
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Ltd.
Villupuram. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Rajammal
2.Santhi
3.Kalyani
4.Murugammal
5.Rajendiran
6.Radha ...Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 made
in M.C.O.P.No.1022 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
JUDGMENT
This matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 20.12.2019
made in M.C.O.P.No.1022 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.1022 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Krishnagiri. The respondents filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
one Perumal, who died in the accident that took place on 12.03.2015.
3.According to the respondents, on the date of accident i.e., on
12.03.2015 at 19.00 hours, while one Jayaraman was riding TVS XL along
with the deceased Perumal from Echambadi to Pommadasampatti after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
finishing their business, near Kongavembu Government Primary Health
Centre in Harur to Uthangarai Road on the extreme left side of the road, the
bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, which was coming
in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling and
caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased Perumal and the said
Jayaraman sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the
respondents have filed the above claim petition claiming compensation
against the appellant.
4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying
the averments made by the respondents and contended that the driver of the
bus is not responsible for the accident. The rider of the two wheeler, who was
coming in the opposite direction, alone dashed against the bus and invited the
accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the
rider of the two wheeler and hence, the deceased is solely responsible for the
accident. The rider of the two wheeler did not possess valid driving license
and did not wear helmet at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. The appellant has also
denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the
compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent, daughter of the deceased,
examined herself as P.W.1, one Murugan, an eye-witness to the accident, was
examined as P.W.2 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. The
appellant/Transport Corporation examined one Kuppusamy, the driver of the
bus as R.W.1 and did not file any documentary evidence.
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
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.13,86,250/- as compensation to the
respondents.
7.Against the said award dated 20.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1022
of 2015, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
8.Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation raised grounds with regard to negligence, at the time of
arguments, he restricted his arguments only with regard to quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and age of the deceased fixed by the
Tribunal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation contended that the respondents have not filed any valid
document to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In the
absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the
deceased as 50 years and a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income
of the deceased. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the improbability in the
evidence of P.W.1 with regard to age of the 1st respondent, who is 55 years
old and erred in awarding compensation to her. The Tribunal ought to have
awarded 10% enhancement instead of 25% enhancement towards future
prospects. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are
excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation and perused the entire materials available on record.
11.From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the
contention of the respondents that the deceased was doing cattle business and
was earning not less than Rs.20,000/- per month. They failed to prove the
same. 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 2015 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The
Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years at the time of accident as
per Ex.P2/post-mortem certificate. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that in the claim petition, the age of the 1st
respondent, wife of the deceased was mentioned as 55 years and
therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing age of the deceased as 50 years.
P.W.1 in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that the 1 st
respondent was aged 55 years and admitted that the age of the
deceased was 50 years at the time of accident. The appellant did not
file any objection to disprove the evidence of P.W.1. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
Tribunal applied multiplier '13', granted 25% enhancement towards future
prospects and awarded a sum of Rs.13,16,250/- towards loss of dependency,
which is not excessive. The Tribunal after considering all the materials on
record, awarded compensation under different heads, which are just
compensation and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.13,86,250/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents 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 respondents are permitted to withdraw their
respective share of the award amount, on the basis of apportionment fixed by
the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if
any, already withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No costs.
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
Index : Yes / No
kj
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
Kj
To
1.The Additional District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Madras.
C.M.A.No.2012 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14741 of 2020
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
