Sahul Hameed vs A.Rukumani
2021 Latest Caselaw 754 Mad

                                                               CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED 11.01.2021

                                                     CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

                                       C.M.A(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010
                                                    and
                                          M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

                      C.M.A(MD)No.370 of 2010

                      1.Sahul Hameed

                      2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                        K.J.R. Complex,
                        10, North Veli Street,
                        Madurai.
                                                                                 .. Appellant

                                                     vs.
                      1.A.Rukumani
                      2.A.Sumathi
                      3.Minor A.Anandkumar
                      (Minor R3 rep. by his mother
                        and next friend/R1)
                      (Minor respondent is declared as major

vide order dated 11.01.2021)

D.Ayyammal (Died)

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

4.Managing Director Tamil Nadu State (Kattabomman) Transport Corporation, No.2, Trivananthapuram Road, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 03.

5.K.Seenivasan

6.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 67, Trichy Main Road, Salem – 1.

...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award made in MCOP No.1540/1998 dated 30.11.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

                                   For Appellant          : Mr.K.Bhaskaran
                                   For Respondents        : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
                                                              (for R1 to R3)
                                                            Mr.M.Prakash (for R4)
                                                            Mr.J.S.Murali (for R6)
                                                            No appearance for R5

                      C.M.A(MD)No.371 of 2010

                      1.Sahul Hameed

                      2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                        K.J.R. Complex,
                        10, North Veli Street, Madurai.                        .. Appellant




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                               CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010



                                                      vs.

                      1.V.Meena
                      2.V.Rajesh Kanna
                      3.Minor V.Kaliraj
                      (Minor R3 rep. by his mother
                        and next friend/R1)

(Minor respondent is declared as major vide order dated 11.01.2021)

4.Managing Director Tamil Nadu State (Kattabomman) Transport Corporation, No.2, Trivananthapuram Road, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 03.

5.K.Seenivasan

6.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 67, Trichy Main Road, Salem – 1.

...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award made in MCOP No.1798/1998 dated 30.11.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

For Appellant : Mr.K.Bhaskaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian (for R1 to R3) Mr.M.Prakash (for R4) Mr.J.S.Murali (for R6)

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are directed against the common award passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Madurai in MCOP Nos.1540 and 1798 of 1998 dated 30.11.2007.

2.The legal heirs of the deceased Ayyappan and Veerachamy @

Veeraiah filed claim petitions seeking compensation on the ground that

both the deceased travelled as passengers on 26.12.1997 in the bus

owned by the first appellant insured with the second appellant from

Virudhunagar to Madurai. It is their case that the driver of the bus drove

it in a rash and negligent manner from the beginning. When the bus was

proceeding near Rengammal Oorani, the driver attempted to overtake a

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

tanker lorry bearing registration No.TCE-4899 and at that time, a bus

bearing registration No.TN-72-N-0479, owned by the Transport

Corporation, which came from the opposite side, rammed the private bus

owned by the first appellant. In the accident, both died on the spot and

several passengers also sustained injuries. Contending that the drivers of

the buses are responsible for the accident, the claim petitions were filed.

3.The claim petitions were resisted by the appellant insurance

company disputing the manner of accident and the entitlement of the

claimants to receive the compensation. It is contended that the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tanker lorry and the

driver of the transport corporation and hence, no liability can be fastened

on the appellant insurance company.

4.Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the negligence, the

claimants examined one Belan Jeyaseelan as eyewitness to the

occurrence. He stated that the drivers of the both the buses came in a

high speed rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The witnesses

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

examined by the appellant deposed that only after getting signal from the

driver of the tanker lorry, the private bus was in the process of overtaking

the vehicle. However, the bus, which was coming from the opposite side,

came in a high speed and dashed against the bus. The order passed in

MCOP Nos.848 of 2000 and 532 of 1999 were referred to show that

entire negligence was fixed on the driver of the private bus. The

Tribunal found that the First Information Report was registered against

the driver of the SNR bus and final report was also filed against him.

After considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the SNR bus.

5.Insofar as the quantum is concerned, in MCOP No.1540 of 1998,

the deceased Ayyappan died at the age of 40 years and he was found to

be a merchant. The Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.2,000/- per

month and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses

(12000 x 12 – 8000 = 16000) and by applying multiplier '16', awarded

Rs.2,56,000/- for loss of income. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- each for loss of love and

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

affection to his children; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total,

the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,01,000/-.

6.Insofar as MCOP No.1798 of 1998 is concerned, the deceased

was aged about 37 years and he was working as a partner in a private

company and paid Rs.2,000/- per month. In this case also, the Tribunal

after deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses and by applying

multiplier '16', awarded Rs.2,56,000/- for loss of income. In addition, the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/-

each for loss of love and affection to his children; Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,01,000/-.

7.It is contended by Mr.K.Bhaskaran learned counsel for the

appellant that in the accident that took place on 26.12.1997, more than 8

persons died and 45 sustained injuries. The claim petitions were filed

before the different Tribunals and they rendered different findings. In

some of the cases, negligence was fixed at the ratio of 50:50 and in some

of the cases, 1/3rd on the drivers of three vehicles, but in the case on

hand, entire liability has been fastened on the driver of the SNR bus.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/claimants contended that aggrieved over the decision of the

Tribunal, the Transport Corporation and Oriental Insurance Company

preferred appeals before this Court and this Court having found that no

steps were taken for joint-trial, confirmed the award passed by the

Tribunal.

9.In the matter on hand, it is seen that the Tribunal, based on the

evidence of eyewitness and taking note of the fact that the criminal case

was filed against the driver of the SNR bus, has fixed the entire liability

on the driver of the SNR bus. Further, the award also appears to be

reasonable and hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere in these

appeals

10.The claim petition of the year 1998 and at that relevant point of

time, in both petition, the 3rd claimant was minor and by now, they should

have become major. So, they are declared as major and the Tribunal is

hereby directed to disburse their share.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

11.In that view, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed.

The appellant/Insurance Company 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 the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any,

as apportioned by the Tribunal together with proportionate interest and

costs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

11.01.2021

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No skn To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribuna l-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010

K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J

skn

JUDGMENT MADE IN

C.M.A(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2010 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

11.01.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in