Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Arul Mani on 8 October, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.(MD)No.413 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.5274 of 2018
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
having Office at
No.2, Trivandrum Road,
Vannarapettai
Tirunelveli ... Appellant / Respondent
-vs-
1.Arul Mani
2.Minor Kamesh
3.Minor Venish ... Respondents / Petitioners
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.1481 of 2016, dated 10.10.2017, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Selvakujmar
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
ORDER
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
Challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, in M.C.O.P.No.1481
of 2016, the appellant transport Corporation has filed this appeal.
2. The case of the respondents / claimants before the Tribunal is
that, the deceased in this case one Pounraj, husband of the 1 st
respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, on 12.09.2016, while
riding his two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-72-BA-7578, from
Vagaikulam to Tirunelveli on Sankarankovil – Tirunelveli Main Road, a
bus, belonging to the appellant / respondent Corporation, bearing
Registration No.TN-72-N-1424, came in opposite direction, in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler, in which, the
deceased sustained serious injuries, immediately, he was taken to a
private hospital at Kokkirakulam, thereafter, TVMC Hospital at
Palayamkottai, where he succumbed to his injuries on 14.09.2016.
3. Claiming that the accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
also stating that the deceased was a sole breadwinner, he was running
a beedi company in the name and style of “Muruga Home Industries”
and also doing scrap business, thereby, he earning monthly income of
Rs.80,000/-, and claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, they
have filed a claim petition.
4. The respondent / appellant transport Corporation contested
the claim petition, on the ground that the accident had taken place
due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased. The driver of the
bus was examined as R.W.1. The transport Corporation has disputed
the monthly income of the deceased and to that effect, they have also
examined an officer from the Income Tax Department.
5. The Tribunal, considering the materials available on record
held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the transport Corporation bus and fixed the
liability on them.
6. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-,
adding 50% towards the future prospects, arrived at the monthly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
income at Rs.30,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd of income towards his
personal expenses, finally fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.20,000/- and applying the multiplier of '15', awarded the
compensation of Rs.36,00,000/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal has
granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.
25,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd claimants towards loss of love and
affection; Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for
travelling expenses. Apart from that, the Tribunal has also awarded a
sum of Rs.58,465/- being the actual medical expenses spent by the
deceased, in total, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.38,33,465/-.
7. Now, challenging the Award, the appellant transport
Corporation, is before this Court with this appeal.
8. Mr.P.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that so far as the negligence is concerned, the
transport Corporation was examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1.
Even though P.W.1, the wife of the deceased said to be an eye-witness,
there is no occasion for her to present in the scene of occurrence, but
without considering the same, the Tribunal has fixed the negligence
on the driver of the appellant transport Corporation bus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
sofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, even though it is
stated that the deceased was running a beedi company, there is no
materials available on record to show that he owned any beedi
company. The monthly income of the deceased was fixed based on a
bank statement from the year 2010 to 2016, which is also not
supported the case of the claimants to hold that the monthly income of
the deceased was Rs.20,000/-. Admittedly, the deceased did not pay
any income tax, the Corporation also examined R.W.2 / Officer from
the Income Tax Department, to prove the same. Without considering
the same, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.20,000/-, without any evidence whatsoever. That part, the
Tribunal has awarded 50% of the monthly income towards his future
prospects, which is against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in (2017 MACD 137). According to the
appellant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly
excessive and exorbitant.
10. Per contra, Mr.T.Selvakumar, the learned counsel appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
for the respondents / claimants would contend that P.W.1 is the first
claimant and wife of deceased. According to her, she was travelling in
another two wheeler behind the deceased and she clearly deposed
that the driver of the transport Corporation bus, which came in
opposite direction, driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner in
high speed, dashed against the two wheeler and caused his death. A
criminal case was also filed against the driver of the transport
Corporation bus. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on
record, rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the
appellant transport Corporation bus.
11. So far as the quantum of compensation, Mr.T. Selvakumar,
the learned counsel would submit that the deceased was running a
beedi company and to prove the same, the claimants marked Central
Excise Registration Certificate and also various receipts issued by the
authority. The claimants also filed the bank statements of the
deceased from 2010 to 2016, which clearly shows that there were
considerable transactions and deposits. The deceased was also
engaged more than 78 employees in the beedi business and paying
salary to them. Considering those circumstances, the Tribunal has
rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
there is no error in it. According to the learned counsel, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just and fair compensation
and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the records carefully.
13. The claimants are widow and two children of the deceased.
The case of the claimants is that, on 12.09.2016, the deceased while
riding his two wheeler from Vagaikulam to Tirunelveli on
Sankarankovil – Tirunelveli Main Road, a bus, belonging to the
appellant / respondent Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-72-
N-1424, came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the two wheeler, in which, the deceased sustained
serious injuries and immediately, he was taken to a private hospital
and thereafter, TVMC Hospital at Palayamkottai, where he succumbed
to his injuries on 14.09.2016. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased.
According to her, at the time of occurrence, she has followed the
deceased in another two wheeler and deposed that it is only the driver
of the bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. That apart,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
a criminal case is also filed against the driver of the bus. The driver
of the bus was examined on behalf of the Corporation as R.W.1, he is
only an interested witness, though number of passengers said to have
travelled in the bus, none of the passengers examined by the appellant
Corporation to prove the negligence. Considering those materials, the
Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of
the appellant transport Corporation and we find no error in it.
14. Turning to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has
fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-, which was
seriously disputed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. From
the perusal of the materials available on record it could be seen that
the deceased obtained a license from the Central Excise Department
for running a Beedi Company. But, to show the income from the beedi
Company, except the Bank statement of the deceased, no other
materials were available. From the perusal of the bank statement it
could be seen that there is no substantial transaction. That apart,
except the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is no other witnesses have
been examined to show that the deceased was running a beedi
company and engaged more than 78 employees. It is also an admitted
fact that the deceased is not an income tax assessee and he has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
paid any income tax. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants
would contend that the deceased is also owning agriculture property
and getting additional income, but except the patta, no other material
has been produced to show the income of the deceased from the
agriculture source.
15. Considering those circumstances, we are of the considered
view that fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- is
on the higher side. However, it cannot be disputed that the deceased
was running a beedi company and engaged in selling beedi on
commission basis, material available on record support the same. The
accident had taken place in the year 2016. Considering those
circumstances, we are of the view that the notional monthly income of
the deceased will be not less than Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the monthly
income of the deceased could be fixed at Rs.15,000/-. At the time of
accident, the deceased was 37 years old. Hence, 40% of his monthly
income is taken for future prospects, which comes to Rs.7000/-. The
notional monthly income of the deceased would be around Rs.
21,000/-. As the deceased leaving behind three dependants, 1/3rd of
monthly income of the deceased should be deducted towards his
personal expenses, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra). After deducting 1/3rd of the
notional monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.14,000/-.
Considering the age of the deceased as 37 years, the appropriate
multiplier will be '15' and applying said multiplier, the loss of estate
comes to Rs.14,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.25,20,000/-. The claimants are
wife and two minor children. Each claimants are entitled for a loss of
consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, they are entitled for a
sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, towards loss of consortium. Apart from that,
they are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.58,465/-, being the actual medical expenses
spent by the deceased. We confirmed the above amount. Thus, this
Court modifies the Award of the Tribunal, as follows:-
Amount Amount
S.No. Description Awarded by Awarded by Award status
Tribunal this Court
1 Loss of Income 36,00,000 25,20,000 Reduced
2 Loss of Consortium 1,00,000 1,20,000 Enhanced
3 Loss of Love and 50,000 - Not Awarded
Affection (each Rs.
25,000)
4 Funeral Expenses 20,000 15,000 Reduced
5 Travel Expenses 5,000 Not Awarded
6 Medical Bills 58,465 58,465 Confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
7. Loss of estate - 15,000 Granted
TOTAL 38,33,465 2728465
16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed and the Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
respondents / claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.27,28,465/-
rounded off to Rs.27,30,000/-, as compensation instead of Rs.
38,33,465/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Award amount is
apportioned, as per the Judgment of the Tribunal. It is represented
that the minor claimants become major. Since the Award amount has
already been deposited, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
same. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[V.B.D.,J.] [J.N.B.,J.]
08.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mpk
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
responsibility of the advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
II Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A(MD)No.413 of 2018
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
J.NISHA BANU, J.
MPK
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.(MD)No.413 of 2018
08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
