Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu State Transport vs C.Thavamani on 21 April, 2022
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4967 of 2019
The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited, rep. through
its Managing Director,
Bye Pass Road,
Collectorate Post,
Dindigul. .. Appellant /
Respondent
Vs
1.C.Thavamani
2.C.Somnath
3.C.Devaraj
4.A.Sevaththammal .. Respondents /
Petitioners
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the award, dated 13.10.2017, passed in M.C.O.P.No.326
of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District and Sessions
Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
JUDGMENT
*********
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the
award dated 13.10.2017, passed in M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2016 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District and Sessions Court, Madurai.
2.Notice of motion was ordered on 24.06.2019. Interim
stay was granted on condition that the admitted liability to the tune of
Rs.13,00,000/- to be deposited within a period of four weeks.
3.Today, the learned counsel for the appellant / Transport
Corporation submitted that the conditional order is not complied with.
4.After hearing the rival submissions, I find that the
appellant / Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal challenging
the award of the Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2016, wherein
the legal representatives of the deceased Chandrasekaran, who was
working as a driver in Government Hospital, died in the road transport
accident, happened on 09.09.2015.
5.The respondents / claim petitioners have filed the above
claim petition on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
passenger in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-1627, which was
proceeding from Udumalaipettai to Periyakulam and the bus was
stopped at Periyakulam TNSTC Junction Bus Stop and some passengers
got down from the bus and when the deceased was trying to get down
from the bus, the driver of the bus without receiving any whistle signal
from the conductor, suddenly moved the bus and due to the sudden
impact of the accident, the deceased was sustained multiple grievous
injuries all over the body.
6.The appellant / Transport Corporation has filed counter
stating that the deceased has attempted to get down from the bus even
before it is being parked at the bus stop and thereby, he lost the
balance and died due to the injuries.
7.Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claim petitioners, the
occurrence witness viz., P.W.2 was examined and Ex.P.1, FIR was
marked. On behalf of the respondent / Transport Corporation, the
driver was examined as R.W.1.
8.Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced
before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
accident has takenplace due to the negligent driving of the driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
bus and accordingly awarded compensation. Since the deceased was
aged about 57 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has
adopted the split up method and applied multiplier in determining the
loss of income upto the age of retirement and for balance, the quantum
was reduced according to the retirement benefits.
9.Aggrieved against the said award on the grounds of
negligence as well as quantum, the Transport Corporation has preferred
this appeal.
10.After hearing the rival submissions made by the
respective counsel and perusing the records, based upon the oral
evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P.1,
FIR, the manner of the accident as spoken to by P.W.2, was believed by
the Tribunal.
11.The learned counsel for the appellant / Transport
Corporation would contend that the evidence of R.W.1 was rejected
without assigning any reason.
12.After going through Ex.P.1, FIR, which came immediately
after the accident and also taking note of the evidence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
occurrence witness, viz., P.W.2, Prabhakaran, I find that after some of
the passengers got down from the bus, the deceased was also trying to
get down from the bus and at that time, the driver of the bus without
receiving any whistle signal from the conductor, suddenly moved the
bus and thereby the deceased lost balance, fell down, sustained injuries
and subsequently succumbed to the injuries and hence, I find that the
oral version of R.W.1, driver of the Transport Corporation bus, is only a
self-serving statement to save his skin and accordingly, the finding of
the Tribunal that the accident has takenplace due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the appellant / Transport Corporation
bus is well considered and well merited, which does not warrant any
interference at this appellate stage and hence, the same is hereby
confirmed.
13.On the point of quantum of compensation, the income of
the deceased has been properly calculated and appropriate multiplier
has been adopted by the Tribunal. However, the grievance of the
appellant / Transport Corporation is that the amount mentioned in
Ex.P.17, Salary Certificate is not duly corroborated.
14.I find that Ex.P.17, Salary Certificate of the deceased
Chandrasekaran was marked through P.W.3, Mr.Sakthivel, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
Superintendent of the Government Hospital, where the deceased
Chandrasekaran was employed. Ex.P.6 is the Identity Card. Ex.P.7 is
the bank passbook maintained by the family member of the deceased.
The Service Register is marked as Ex.P.16 and therefore, the monthly
income arrived at by the Tribunal and the deduction made towards
personal expenses, appear to be in consonance with the ratio of the law
as pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the same
are just and reasonable.
15.The learned counsel for the appellant / Transport
Corporation would contend that after retirement, there must be a
reduction in salary and hence, split multiplier method has to be applied.
Whether the split multiplier method has to be applied or not, is no
longer res integra in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R.Valli and Others v. Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in 2022(1) TN MAC 289 [Civil
Appeal No.1269 of 2022], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that after the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 ,the split multiplier
method of calculation for the person about to be retired, will not arise
and hence, the calculation of multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal
is just and proper. Therefore, the contention of the appellant /
Transport Corporation stands rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
16.The compensation awarded towards the conventional
heads are more or less just and proper and therefore, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the award dated 13.10.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2016 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District and Sessions Court,
Madurai is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
smn
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
smn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.414 of 2019
21.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
