Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Jothi on 7 January, 2022
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited,
3/137, Salamedu, Vazhuthareddy,
Villupuram Tamilnadu. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Jothi
2.Minor. Jonathan
3.Minor. Rachel .. Respondents
(Minor respondents 2 & 3 are represented by their
next friend/Mother Jothi, 1st respondent herein)
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
20.04.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.330 of 2007 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
For Respondents : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the
quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated
20.04.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.330 of 2007 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Puducherry.
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.330 of 2007 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court,
Puducherry. The respondents filed the above said claim petition claiming a
sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Vincent Thomas,
who died in the accident that took place on 18.12.2006.
4.According to respondents, on 18.12.2006 at about 08.15 P.M., while
the deceased Vincent Thomas was riding the TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing
Registration No.PY 01 V 0019 slowly from West to East on the Puducherry –
Villupuram Main Road opposite to Amudhasurabi Bar, Arumparthapuram,
Puducherry, the driver of the bus bearing Regsitration No.TN 32 N 2264
belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
motorcycle driven by the said Vincent Thomas and caused the accident. In the
accident, the said Vincent Thomas fell down and sustained grievous injuries,
fracture of left leg, head injury and multiple injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident, the said Vincent Thomas was taken to
Government General Hospital, Puducherry. Inspite of treatment, the said
Vincent Thomas succumbed to injuries. Therefore, the respondents filed the
said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the
death of the said Vincent Thomas against the appellant-Transport
Corporation.
5.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation
and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,99,000/- as compensation to
the respondents.
6.Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
in the award dated 20.04.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.330 of 2007, the
appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation contended that the respondents failed to prove the avocation and
income of the deceased by letting in evidence. In the absence of any material
evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, a sum of
Rs.7,500/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income of the
deceased is excessive. The Tribunal ought to have fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/-
as monthly income of the deceased and awarded compensation towards loss
of dependency. The respondents failed to prove the age of the deceased by
letting in documentary evidence. In the absence of any documentary evidence
to prove the age of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased
based on Postmortem certificate and erroneously applied multiplier '16'. The
Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier '15' by fixing the age of the deceased
between 41 to 45 years. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss
of consortium to 1st respondent, loss of love and affection to respondents 2 &
3 and funeral expenses are excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of
the Tribunal.
8.Though the respondents entered appearance through counsel, today
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for them.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the entire materials on record.
10.It is the claim of the respondents in the claim petition that at the time
of accident the deceased was aged 35 years, working as Sales Manager at
Romega Foam Company, Pathukannu and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month. To prove the avocation and income, the respondents examined one
Gunasegaran, Accountant of Romega Foam Company, Pathukannu as P.W.3
and marked salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.A10. But, the respondents
have not produced any accounts book or acquaintance roll maintained in the
Company to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the
same, in the absence of any evidence with regard to income, fixed the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. As per Ex.A3/postmortem
certificate, the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident. The correct
multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 SC [Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another] is '15', but the Tribunal erroneously applied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
multiplier '16'. The deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and the
respondents are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609
(SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others]. But the
Tribunal failed to grant any enhancement towards future prospects and also
has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. Further, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to 1st respondent and
funeral expenses are also meagre. In view of the failure on the part of the
Tribunal for not granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, the
excessive amount fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income of the deceased,
multiplier '16' applied instead of '15' and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection to respondents 2 & 3 are not
interfered with.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum
of Rs.10,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-
Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with
interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.330 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Court, Puducherry. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent is permitted to withdraw her respective share of the award amount
as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with
proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of
the minor respondents 2 & 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalized Banks, till the minor respondents 2 & 3 attain majority. On such
deposit, the 1st respondent being the Mother of the minor respondents 2 & 3 is
permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the
welfare of the minor respondents 2 & 3. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
07.01.2022
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
krk
To
1.The learned Principal District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Puducherry.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
C.M.A.No.2985 of 2014
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
