Madras High Court
State Express Transport ... vs Guruvammal on 23 September, 2021
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamil nadu Limited.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai
Chennai-2. ... Appellant / Respondent
-vs-
1.Guruvammal
2.B.Saravanan
3.B.Jothi ... Respondents/Claimants
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decreetal order dated
16.09.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.114 of 2018, by the District and Sessions
Court for Communal Clash, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Senthil Kumariah
For Respondents : Mr.D.Mohan Gandhi
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.]
Aggrieved over the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.114 of 2018, on the file of the District and Sessions Court for
Communal Clash, Madurai, the Transport Corporation is before this Court
with this appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation.
2. The case of the claimants is that the deceased one Vairam, aged
about 24 years, a graduate, working as a Customer Manager in Mahendra
Finance Company. On 10.02.2018, while he was returning back home, in
his two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-64-Q-1073, a bus, belonging
to the appellant transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-01-
N-9909, came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the two wheeler, in which, the deceased sustained serious
injuries, subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries, on the way to hospital.
3.Claiming that the accident had taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the transport Corporation, the claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
viz., mother, unmarried brother and sister filed the claim petition, claiming
compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the materials, held that the
accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the bus and fixed the liability on the appellant transport Corporation.
5.So far the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the
fact that the deceased was working as a Customer Manager in a reputed
Private Company and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, for
which, a salary certificate is marked and a co-employee was also examined,
after deducting the allowances, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. Adding 40% towards future prospects and
after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, arrived at a monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.28,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor,
the Tribunal has deducted 50% towards his personal expenses, arrived at
the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.14,000/- and
fixed the multiplier as '18', and awarded a sum of Rs.30,24,000/-, for loss of
estate; apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and awarded a total sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
Rs.30,89,000/-. Now challenging the quantum of compensation, the
appellant is before this Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
also the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants.
7. The appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of
compensation. The deceased was 24 years at the time of accident and he
was working as a Customer Manger in a reputed Company and getting a
monthly salary of 25,000/-. To prove the monthly salary, a salary certificate
of the deceased has been marked as Ex.P16, and appointment order was
also marked as Ex.P15. To corroborate the same, one Ashok Kumar / P.W.2,
a co-employee of the deceased was examined. However, the Tribunal has
fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-, after deducting
the allowances paid to him. As per the guidelines issued by the Hon'bloe
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Others reported in (2017 MACD 137), the deceased is aged below
40 years, 40% of his salary has been added for future prospects, arriving at
the monthly salary of Rs.28,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor 50%
of the monthly income has been deducted towards his personal expenses at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
Rs.15,000/- and rightly applying the multiplier of '18', arrived at total loss
of estate to Rs.30,24,000/-. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been
awarded towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection
and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Even though all the claimants are
entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/-, each, the tribunal only awarded a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate and granted a total
compensation of Rs.30,89,000/-.
8. Considering all theses circumstances, the Tribunal correctly
awarded a just and fair compensation. We find no irregularity in the award
passed by the Tribunal. We find no merit in the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, the same is only liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
[V.B.D.J.,] [J.N.B.J.,]
23.09.2021
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
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.
and
J.NISHA BANU,J.
MPK
C.M.A.(MD).No.847 of 2021
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
