Madras High Court
Kalaiselvi vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 25 October, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
1.Kalaiselvi
2.Venkatesan
3.Minor Muthu
(Minor third appellant is represented through
his next friend and natural guardian Kalaiselvi)
4.N.Valli .. Appellants
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Through its General Manager,
Maruthupathi, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District. .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to call for the records pertaining to judgment and award dated
08.11.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Devakottai and to set aside the same.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Anandkumar
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011 dated 08.12.2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Devakottai.
2.The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondent herein is the
respondent in the claim petition. The appellants herein have filed a claim petition in
M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011, claiming compensation for the death of one Naganatha
Sethupathi, in an accident that took place on 09.06.2009. The Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.11,25,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) as
compensation. Against which, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3.A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011 is as
follows:
On 09.06.2009, at about 05.45 p.m., when the deceased was standing near
the bus stop, a bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0801 was taken by the driver in
a negligent manner without the conductor giving whistle, the driver reversed the bus
and hit against the deceased. The deceased was working as the conductor and was
earning Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. The petitioners were
dependants of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakhs only) as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
4.The brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent herein is as
follows:
The bus driver was careful and cautious. Only after hearing the whistle
blown by the conductor, the bus driver slowly moved the bus. Though the deceased
was advised to vacate the path, the deceased in a negligent manner was standing on
the way and he invited the accident. The manner of the accident as narrated in the
petition is wrong. The bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0801 was entering the
bus stand, when the bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0643 was taken out in a
reverse manner, the deceased in a negligent manner came in between both the buses
and was crushed between both the buses. The deceased was negligent. The claim is
excessive.
5.On the side of the claimants, four witnesses were examined and 13
documents were marked. On the side respondent in the claim petition, one witness
was examined and no document was marked. After considering both sides, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Twenty
Five Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the respondent. Against which,
the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
6.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased was in service
at the time of accident. He had a further period of 12 years service. The Tribunal
failed to consider future prospects. The enhancement of income that may be received
by the deceased if he is alive was not considered by the Tribunal. The multiplier
applied is very low. Without considering Ex.P7, school certificate and Ex.P9,
appointment order, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the age of the deceased as 50.
Whereas the age of the deceased is only 45 years at the time of accident.
7.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased was having
only eight years of service. There may not be chance for the deceased to receive full
salary after retirement and that the deceased can receive only half of the salary, after
his retirement.
8.A perusal of the records reveals that the age of the deceased fixed by the
Tribunal is wrong. The Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years, on the
basis of the post morterm certificate and applied multiplier '13'. A perusal of school
records, Ex.P7 reveals that the date of birth is 30.03.1965. On the date of accident,
the deceased has completed 44 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
9.In the above circumstances, the multiplier method adopted by the
Tribunal is to be enhanced to '14'. The salary of the deceased was not disputed by the
respondent. The salary of the deceased is Rs.10,000/- per month. The future
prospects was not considered by the Tribunal. Considering the age of the deceased,
30% future prospects is to be added. The monthly income is calculated as Rs.
13,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his own expenses, the monthly income is Rs.
8,667/-. After applying multiplier '14', the income is calculated as Rs.14,56,056/-
(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Fifty Six only). As per Praney
Sethi case, the appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand
only) as conventional charges. In total, a sum of Rs.15,26,056/- (Rupees Fifteen
Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand and Fifty Six only) is awarded as compensation.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The
appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,26,056/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Six
Thousand and Fifty Six only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
11.The respondent is directed to deposit the above said amount if not
deposited earlier, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
award amount as per the ratio apportionment fixed by the Tribunal with interest and
costs, after deducting any amount received by them earlier. The Tribunal is directed
to deposit the share of the minor claimant in any one of the Nationalized Banks, in a
Fixed Deposit scheme, till they attain majority. The first respondent, who is the
mother and guardian of the minor claimant, is permitted to withdraw the accrued
interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of the
minors. The appellants are directed to pay extra Court fee, if any needed. No Costs.
25.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MRN
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 responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Judge,
Devakottai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
R. THARANI, J.
MRN
C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2014
25.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
