Tnstc vs Nirmala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5271 Mad

                                                                          C.M.A.No.569 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.569 of 2021
                                             and C.M.P.No.3535 of 2021

                   TNSTC, Villupuram,
                   Rep. through the Managing Director.                          .. Appellant

                                                         Vs.

                   1.Nirmala

                   2.Minor Gokulnath

                   3.Minor Gurunath                                           .. Respondents

                   (Minors rep. By their mother, 1st respondent)

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

                   Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2020, made

                   in M.C.O.P. No.199 of 2017, on the file of the Additional District Court,

                   (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Vellore @ Ranipet.



                   _____
                   1/13




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

                                         For Appellant      : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar

                                         For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivakumar

                                                  JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

Transport Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation granted by

the Tribunal in the award dated 05.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.199 of

2017, on the file of the Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal), Vellore @ Ranipet.

2.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well

as the respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission

stage itself.

3.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.199 of 2017, on the

file of the Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),

Vellore @ Ranipet. The respondents/claimants filed the said claim petition,

claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

Madhavan, who died in the accident that took place on 13.07.2017.

4.According to the respondents, on the date of accident, when the

deceased Madhavan was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-25-

AY-2016 on Arcot to Arani Road, near Tajpura Koot Road, opposite to Sivan

Kovil, the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-1857

belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation who was coming from

opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit

against the Motorcycle and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased

Madhavan sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and

negligent driving by the driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-

Transport Corporation. Hence, the respondents filed the claim petition

claiming compensation against the appellant as owner of the said vehicle.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

5.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement and

denied all the averments made by the respondents. According to the appellant,

on the date of accident, the Bus belonging to them was plying from

Vilapakkam to Vellore in a moderate speed by observing traffic rules. When

the Bus was nearing Tajpura Koot Road, the rider of the Motorcycle, under

consumption of alcohol, rode the vehicle in opposite direction, lost control

and hit the Bus belonging to the appellant and caused the accident. The

accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the Bus and hence,

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

claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle

drove by the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased rode the

Motorcycle without wearing helmet and without possessing valid driving

license. The appellant has also denied the age, avocation and income of the

deceased. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondents is

excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1,

examined one Gunasekaran, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked

6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined

one S.Gajendran, driver of the Bus as R.W.1, but did not mark any document.

7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred 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.29,59,800/- as compensation to the

respondents.

8.To set aside the said award dated 05.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P.

No.199 of 2017, the appellant – Transport Corporation has come out with the

present appeal.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

9.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 of Motorcycle by the deceased.

The Tribunal erred in fixing entire negligence on the driver of the Bus,

merely relying on the FIR registered against the driver of the Bus. 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.12,000/- as

monthly income of the deceased Madhavan, which is excessive. The amounts

awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are excessive and prayed for

setting aside the award of the Tribunal.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents

contended that the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 – eye

witness and FIR registered against the driver of the Bus, rightly fixed

negligence on the driver of the Bus and directed the appellant to pay

compensation. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 28 years,

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

working as a Welder and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The

Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income.

The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are not excessive and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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

Corporation as well as the respondents and perused the entire materials

available on record.

12.It is the case of the respondents that while the deceased Madhavan

was riding his Motorcycle, the driver of the Bus belonging to the

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

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

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

deceased Madhavan, examined herself as P.W.1, eye-witness to the accident

was examined as P.W.2, who deposed about the manner of the accident and

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

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

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

that while the Bus belonging to them was driven carefully, the deceased/rider

of the Motorcycle, in an inebriated condition, drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner in opposite direction and hit against the Bus and caused the

accident. 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 to pay the compensation to the respondents. There is

no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this

Court.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

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

respondents that the deceased Madhavan was working as a Welder and was

earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. The

respondents failed to prove the same. In the absence of any material evidence

to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/-

per month as notional income of the deceased. Considering the year of

accident and nature of work done by the deceased, the monthly income fixed

by the Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal has excessively awarded a sum

of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 and

3. Hence the same is liable to be reduced and the respondents 2 and 3 who are

the minor children of the deceased are entitled to only a sum of Rs.40,000/-

each towards loss of love and affection. In addition to granting loss of love

and affection, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

towards maintenance of the respondents 2 and 3 till they attain majority. The

same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The amounts granted by

the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are

confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

follows:

S. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award by Tribunal awarded by this confirmed or (Rs) Court (Rs) enhanced or granted

1. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed

2. Loss of consortium to 1st 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed respondent

3. Loss of love and 2,00,000/- 80,000/- Reduced affection to respondents 2 and 3

4. Maintenance of Minor 4,00,000/- - Set aside respondents 2 and 3 till they attain majority

5. Loss of dependency 22,84,800/- 22,84,800/- Confirmed

6. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

7. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed Total 29,59,800/- 24,39,800/- Reduced by Rs.5,20,000/-

14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.29,59,800/- is modified to

Rs.24,39,800/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-Transport Corporation is

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

directed to deposit the award amount, now determined by this Court, along

with interest and costs, 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.199 of 2017.

On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw her share of the

award amount, now determined by this Court, along 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. The shares of the minor respondents 2 and 3

are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the

minors attain majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor respondents 2

and 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for

the welfare of the minor respondents 2 and 3. The appellant-Transport

Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, lying in the deposit

to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.199 of 2017, if any already deposited by them. It

is made clear that if the respondents have already withdrawn the award

amount, the appellant-Transport Corporation is not entitled to recover the

same from the respondents. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

is closed. No costs.

01.03.2021

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No gsa

To

1.The Additional District Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Vellore @ Ranipet.

2.The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.569 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI, J.,

gsa

C.M.A. No.569 of 2021

01.03.2021

_____

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