Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Soundhararajan on 10 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.665 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.4088 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Villupuram Division III,
Kanchipuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Soundhararajan
2.Devagi
3.Kamatchi
4.Minor Thenarasi
(Minor rep. By her father/natural guardian,
1st respondent)
5.Gnanaprakasam .. Respondents
_____
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017, made
in M.C.O.P. No.546 of 2016, on the file of the District Court-II, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Kanchipuram.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation to set aside the award of the Tribunal dated
04.03.2017, made in M.C.O.P. No.546 of 2016, on the file of the District
Court-II, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Kanchipuram.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.546 of 2016, on
the file of the District Court-II, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Kanchipuram. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants filed the said claim petition,
claiming a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one
Barathkumar, who died in the accident that took place on 06.04.2006.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
3.According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident, when
the deceased Barathkumar was riding his Two Wheeler near Rajakulam Bus
Stop, on the left side of the GWT Road in a proper manner, the driver of a
Bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0568 belonging to the appellant-
Transport Corporation, proceeding from Kanchipuram to Chennai, drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind the deceased
Barathkumar and ran over his head. In the accident, the deceased
Barathkumar sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash
and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed
the claim petition claiming compensation against the 5th respondent as driver
and appellant as owner of the Bus involved in the accident.
4.The 5th respondent, driver of the Bus, remained exparte before the
Tribunal.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
5.The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition.
According to the appellant, on the date of accident, the 5th respondent, driver
of the Bus involved in the accident was driving the Bus from Kancheepuram
to Chennai, observing traffic rules and when the Bus was proceeding on the
left side of the road near Rajakulam, the deceased rider of the Two Wheeler
suddenly turned the vehicle towards left side without noticing the Bus. In
spite of the fact that the driver of the Bus applied brake to avert the accident,
the deceased came in contact with the left side of the Bus and died on the
spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of Two
Wheeler by the deceased Barathkumar. Hence, the appellant is not liable to
pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. In any event, the respondents
1 to 4 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, to claim
compensation. The total compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is
excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1,
examined one Vasu, eye-witness as P.W.2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1
to P7. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the 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.8,39,000/- as compensation to
the respondents 1 to 4.
8.To set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 04.03.2017, made in
M.C.O.P. No.546 of 2016, the appellant – Transport Corporation has come
out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the accident has
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of Two Wheeler by the
deceased Barathkumar. The Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the
evidence of P.W.1 – father of the deceased, who is not an eye witness. The
Tribunal erred in holding that mere registration of FIR against the driver of
the Bus is enough for holding negligence on the driver of the Bus. In the
absence of any evidence by the respondents 1 to 4 to prove the age, avocation
and income of the deceased, the sum of Rs.4,500/- fixed by the Tribunal as
monthly income of the deceased is excessive. The total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award
of the Tribunal.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
11.It is the case of the respondents 1 to 4 that while the deceased
Barathkumar was riding the Two Wheeler, carefully on the left side of the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
road, the 5th respondent, driver of the Bus belonging to the
appellant/Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, hit behind the Two Wheeler and caused the accident. To substantiate
this contention, the 1st respondent, father of the deceased Barathkumar
examined himself as P.W.1, examined eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2
and marked FIR, which was registered against the 5th respondent, as Ex.P1.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant/Transport Corporation
that the deceased rider of the Two Wheeler suddenly turned to left side of the
road negligently and dashed against their Bus and caused the accident. The
appellant has not examined any independent witness to prove their
contention. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 eye-witness, FIR
which was registered against the 5th respondent/driver of the Bus, failure on
the part of the appellant to examine any independent eye-witness and in the
absence of any objection given to the complaint lodged against the driver of
the Bus, held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant/Transport
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
Corporation and directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the
respondents 1 to 4. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal
warranting interference by this Court.
12.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of
the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased Barathkumar was aged 18 years,
working as an Electrical Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per
month at the time of accident. They 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.4,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased,
granted 50% enhancement towards future prospects, deducted ½ towards
personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier '18', awarded
compensation towards loss of dependency. The accident is of the year 2014.
The cost of living has increased enormously and salary of even unskilled
workers has increased substantially. Considering the year of accident and
nature of work done by the deceased, the monthly income fixed by the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
each towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 1 to 4, which is not
excessive. The Tribunal has awarded meagre amount towards funeral
expenses, transportation and failed to award any amount for loss of estate.
The total compensation granted by the Tribunal is not excessive, warranting
interference by this Court.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,39,000/- 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.546 of 2016. On such deposit,
the respondents 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award
amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any,
already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The
share of the minor 4th respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalized Bank, till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent, father
of the minor 4th respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once
in three months for the welfare of the minor 4th respondent. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
10.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The II Judge,
District Court,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Kanchipuram.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.665 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.665 of 2021
10.03.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
