The Managing Director vs M.Rani
2021 Latest Caselaw 5270 Mad

                                                                          C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 01.03.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                               C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

                   The Managing Director
                   Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                   No.12, Ramakrishna Road
                   Salem Division-II, Dharmapuri.                               .. Appellant


                                                         Vs.
                   1.M.Rani
                   2.M.Parthiban
                   3.M.Jayasundari

                   4.Minor. M.Tamilselvi
                   5.Minor.N.Sasikumar
                   (Minors represented by their mother
                   and next friend M.Rani)

                   6.V.Subramani                                              .. Respondents

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

                   Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013

                   made in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

                   Tribunal, Sub Court, Harur.


                   1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

                                            For Appellant     : Mr.D.Venkatachalam


                                                      JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/Transport Corporation to set aside the award dated 28.03.2013

made in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sub Court, Harur.

2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is respondent in M.C.O.P.No.25

of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Harur.

The respondents filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Murugan, who died in

the accident that took place on 25.02.2010.

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

25.02.2010 at about 6.30 p.m., while the deceased Murugan was riding in

his motorcycle from Kadathur to Bommidi, near Anna Nagar E.B. Office and

when he was overtaking the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

Corporation with careful manner, the driver of the bus drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner, turned the bus to the extreme right side of the

road, hit against the motorcycle driven by the said Murugan and caused the

accident. In the accident, the said Murugan sustained fatal injuries and died

in the hospital. Therefore, the respondents filed the claim petition claiming

compensation against the appellant/Transport Corporation.

4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying

the averments made by the respondents and contended that the deceased

Murugan was the pillion rider and the rider of the motorcycle alone rode the

same in a rash and negligent manner and invited the accident. The driver of

the bus was not responsible for the accident. At the time of accident, the rider

of the motorcycle and the rider of another TVS 50 tried to overtake the bus at

high speed and dashed each other. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle

and the said TVS 50 were not made as parties to the claim petition and hence,

the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the

appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. The

appellant has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

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, wife of the deceased Murugan

examined herself as P.W.1, Munirathinam and Annamalai, eye-witnesses to

the accident were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and eight

documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. The appellant/Transport

Corporation examined one S.Sakthivelan, the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and

marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

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/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.9,23,000/- as

compensation to the respondents.

7.To set aside the said award dated 28.03.2013 made in

M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2010, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out

with the present appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the accident has

occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle

in which the deceased Murugan travelled as pillion rider and the Police filed

Ex.R1/charge sheet against the deceased. Therefore, contributory negligence

has to be fixed on the deceased. The learned counsel further contended that

the Tribunal failed to note that no valid document was filed by the

respondents to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The

Tribunal erred in fixing a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of the

deceased Murugan, which is excessive. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal

under different heads are excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of

the Tribunal.

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

Corporation and perused the entire materials available on record.

10.It is the case of the respondents that while the deceased Murugan

was riding in his motorcycle, the driver of the bus belonging to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

appellant/Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner, hit against the motorcycle driven by the deceased and caused the

accident. To substantiate this contention, the 1st respondent, wife of the

deceased Murugan, examined herself as P.W.1, eye-witnesses to the accident

were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, deposed about the manner of the accident

and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the

bus. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant/Transport

Corporation that while both the rider of the motorcycle in which the deceased

Murugan travelled as pillion rider and the rider of one TVS 50 were trying to

overtake the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, dashed

against each other and thus, the accident has occurred. To prove their case,

the appellant examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. The appellant has not

examined any independent witness to prove their contention. R.W.1, the

driver of the bus is an interested witness. The Tribunal considering the

evidence of P.W.2, contents of Ex.P1/F.I.R and failure on the part of the

appellant to examine any independent eye-witness, held that the accident has

occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus

belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and directed the appellant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

to pay the compensation to the respondents. There is no error in the said

finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.

11.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the

respondents that the deceased Murugan was working as a building Contractor

and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident. The

respondents marked Identity card of the deceased as Ex.P5 to prove the

avocation of the deceased. In the absence of any material evidence to prove

the income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- per

month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2010

and the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The Tribunal fixed

the age of the deceased as 39 years as per Ex.P2/Post-mortem certificate and

applied multiplier '15', which is proper. The Tribunal failed to grant any

enhancement towards future prospects. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court reported in 2017(2)TNMAC 609 (SC) (National Insurance

Company v. Pranay Sethi), the respondents are entitled to 40%

enhancement towards future prospects. There are six dependants of the

deceased and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

expenses instead of 1/5th. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The amounts awarded by the

Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are

meagre. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

not interfered with.

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

sum of Rs.9,23,000/- 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 1 to 3 and 6 are permitted to

withdraw their respective share of the award amount, as per the

apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and

costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The share amounts of the

minors/respondents 4 & 5 are directed to be deposited in any one of the

Nationalised Banks till the minors attain majority. The 1st respondent being

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

mother of the minors/respondents 4 & 5 is permitted to withdraw the accrued

interest once in three months for the welfare of the minors. No costs.

01.03.2021

Index : Yes / No kj/gsa To

1.The Subordinate Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Harur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

Kj/gsa

C.M.A.No.582 of 2021

01.03.2021

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