Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Rajammal on 5 April, 2022
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2341 of 2021
The Managing Director,
M/s. TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Regional Office, Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri - 636 705. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Rajammal
2.Lachimi
3.K.Palani
4.Sumathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.03.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.674 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Ms.P.Rajathi
for Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The Appellant/ Transport Corporation aggrieved by the Award passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor
Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.674 of 2019 dated
09.03.2020 has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
2. The circumstances in which the Appeal has been filed are as
follows:
One Kannukhan, the husband of the first respondent and father
of respondents 2 to 4 was travelling in the Appellant's/ Transport
Corporation's bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1783 from Krishnagiri
to Thimmapuram. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner at
high speed by the person in control of the steering wheel. By reason of the
speed, when the bus had suddenly cut to the left to enter the service road,
the deceased Kannukhan was thrown away and by reason of his fall he had
fatal injuries to his vital organs. He was rushed to the Government
Community Health Centre, Kaveripattinam. When he was examined by the
duty Doctor, they had informed that he had died on the way. The legal heirs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
of the deceased Kannukhan, who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, therefore
filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking
compensation of a sum of Rs.66,56,500/- which they had restricted to a sum
of Rs.30,00,000/-. It was their contention that the said Kannukhan was
dealing in the business of Mangoes and other seasonal fruits and earning a
sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. By reason of his sudden death, the legal heirs
have been left in a lurch.
3. The Appellant/ Transport Corporation had filed a counter, denying
the fact that the bus was driven in rash and negligent manner. It is their case
that Kannukhan was standing inside the bus and was under the influence of
liquor and speaking on his mobile phone. Thereafter, without giving any
information to the conductor, he tried to get down from the moving bus,
which resulted in his fall and injuries. They would contend that they cannot
be held responsible for the death of the said Kannukhan. The Appellant
Transport Corporation would further confirm that the postmortem certificate
of the deceased also mentions the presence of alcohol.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
4. The learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by order
dated 09.03.2020 had held that the accident had occurred only on account of
the negligence of the Appellant's/ Transport Corporation's driver. The
Tribunal had also relied on evidence of P.W.2 to come to the conclusion
that the deceased was not under the influence of alcohol. As regards the
quantum, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,75,100/- as
compensation.
5. Challenging the said order, the Appellant / Transport Corporation
is before this Court.
6. The challenge is both on the ground of liability as well as on the
ground of quantum.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/
Transport Corporation would submit that the accident had occurred only on
account of the negligence of the deceased. Had he remained safely inside
the bus, he would not have fallen off the bus and consequently, sustained
injuries. It is only because the deceased was standing near the door and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
was in an intoxicated state coupled with his being engaged on the mobile
phone that the accident had occurred. As regards quantum, no shred of
evidence has been produced to substantiate the same and therefore the
notional income arrived at by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He would
also submit that the other amounts granted, appear to be fairly reasonable.
8. Per contra, Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents 1 to 4/ claimants would submit that the accident had
occurred only when the bus being driven in high speed in rash and negligent
manner had suddenly swerved to the left to get on to the service road and
when the curve was being taken without reducing the speed had caused a
jolt, as a result of which the deceased had lost his balance and fallen and
sustained fatal injuries. He would, therefore, submit that the negligence is
exclusively only upon the Appellant/ Transport Corporation.
9. Heard the learned counsels, appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
10. The Tribunal below had extracted the evidence of P.W.2, who had
clearly deposed about the manner in which the accident had taken place,
which clearly shows that the bus driver was guilty of rash and negligent
driving. This witness i.e., P.W.2 has categorically stated that the deceased
Kannukhan was not under the influence of alcohol. In the light of this
categorical statement, which has not been rebutted, the Appellant /
Transport Corporation cannot claim that the deceased was himself
responsible for the accident.
11. The deceased was aged about 50 years on the date of the accident.
The loss of income and compensation under other heads have been
considered, keeping in mind the parameters laid down by various Judicial
pronouncements as well as the provisions of the Act. Therefore, there is no
necessity to set aside the same, as it is very much in order. Accordingly, the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
P.T. ASHA, J,
ab
C.M.A. No.343 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2341 of 2021
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
