Madras High Court
The Karnataka State Transport ... vs K.Palani on 27 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.7303 of 2022
The Karnataka State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kolar Division, rep by its Managing Director,
Kolar Division, K.H.Road,
Bangalore, Karnataka ... Appellant
-Vs.-
1. K.Palani
2. P.Thamilarasi
3. P.Narendiran
4. S.Rajendira Reddy ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 20.09.2021
passed in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Gudiyatham.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Transport-Corporation is before this Court, challenging the award
passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT), Gudiyatham in
M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2017 dated 20.09.2021.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 are the parents and brother of one
P.Prabhakaran, who had died in a road accident that took place on 12.01.2017.
On the said date, at around 3.45 p.m., the deceased along with the third
respondent herein, were proceeding in a two-wheeler bearing Registration
No.TN-22-CA-9634. The brothers were proceeding on Pallikonda to
Gudiyatham Road and when they neared Hyderpuram, the bus belonging to the
appellant-Transport Corporation, which was driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the two-wheeler, in which, the deceased travelled, as a
result of which, the said Prabhakaran and the third respondent herein had
sustained grievous injuries. They rushed to the Government hospital,
Gudiyattam, where the said Prabhakaran succumbed to his injuries. The
respondents 1 to 3/claimants would submit that the accident had occurred only
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-
Transport Corporation's bus and they had sought a compensation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. The appellant-Transport Corporation had contended that the third
respondent, who was riding the two-wheeler and who was a minor, did not
possess the valid driving licence. Further, the accident had occurred only on
account of the negligence of the minor and that the owner and the Insurance
Company of the said two-wheeler were therefore to be impleaded as necessary
parties. They had further contended that the parents are not dependents on the
deceased and on the contrary, it was the deceased, who was dependent on
them. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The fourth respondent herein-driver of the bus, had filed a counter
before the Tribunal, alleging negligence on the side of the third respondent,
rider of the two wheeler.
5. The Tribunal, on examining the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, had
come to the conclusion that the accident was only on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the fourth respondent herein, being the driver of the
appellant-bus. However, considering the fact that the third respondent herein,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
who was the minor, had ridden the two-wheeler, 10% contributory negligence
had been mulcted on him. The Tribunal has proceeded to award a sum of
Rs.9,47,520/- as compensation.
6. The Tribunal has taken into account the age of the deceased and
the fact that he was a second year student, doing his diploma course in
Electrical and Electronics Engineering (D.E.E.E), the Tribunal had only fixed a
monthly income at Rs.6,500/- to which, 40% was added towards future
prospects and taking into account the age of the deceased, had adopted a
multiplier of 18 and since he was the minor, 50% was deducted towards his
personal expenses. However, only a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been granted under
the head of Love and Affection". It is this order that is sought to be challenged
and as held by the Tribunal the manner in which the accident had taken place,
clearly proves that the appellant-Transport Corporation's bus driver was
responsible for the accident. P.W.2, who was the rider of the bike and the eye-
witness, has deposed about the manner in which the accident had
taken place. The appellant-Transport Corporation has not been able to rebut or
shake this evidence. The Tribunal has therefore rightly held that it is the
fourth respondent herein, who had caused the accident on account of rash and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
negligent driving and the appellant-transport Corporation, was liable to
compensate the claimants. The Tribunal has also awarded very reasonable
compensation and reasonings have been given for the same. Therefore, I see no
reason to interfere with well-considered Award of the Tribunal below and
accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Subordinate Judge (MACT) at Gudiyatham.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
P.T.ASHA.J
srn
C.M.A.No.983 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.7303 of 2022
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
