Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Ravikumar on 20 June, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A. Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation Ltd., (Madurai Division)
Dindukkal. .. Appellant in all C.M.As.
Vs.
1.Ravikumar
2.Maickel Raj
3.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Post Box No.47,
Kumara Shopping Complex,
Kumaran Road,
Thirupur 641 601. .. Respondents in all C.M.As.
Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section
173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree
dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on
the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
(In all C.M.As.)
For Appellant : Mr.R.Bala Ramesh
for M/s.D.Venkatachalam
For R1 : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy
(Senior Counsel)
for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For R3 : Mr.J.Chandran
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation against the common judgment and decree dated
04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file
of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Dharapuram, Tiruppur.
2.The parties and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are one and the same and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 &
211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur. The 1st
respondent/claimant filed the said claim petitions, claiming a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- as
compensation for the death of Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha,
Kalavathi and Sudha, respectively, who died in the accident that took place on
11.09.2011, against the respondents 2 and 3 who are the driver of the Bus
owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and Insurance Company of the
Santro Car in which the deceased persons traveled.
4.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about
6.00 p.m., the deceased Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi
and Sudha were travelling with Harihara Sudhan and Balachandran in a
Santro Car bearing Registration No.TN-38-AB-1666, along the Tiruppur to
Dharapuram Main road from South to North direction, driven by Harihara
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
Sudhan in a very slow speed, cautious manner, adhering the road traffic rules
and regulations. While nearing R.R.D. Mill, the 2nd respondent/driver of the
Bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-1960 owned by the appellant-
Transport Corporation who was coming in the opposite direction, drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to overtake another
vehicle which was proceeding ahead, came to the wrong side of the road and
dashed against the Santro Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the
occupants of the Santro Car sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred
only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus
owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and hence, the 1st respondent
filed claim petitions against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Transport
Corporation as driver and owner of the Bus respectively and 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company as insurer of the Santro Car in which the deceased
persons traveled.
5.The appellant-Transport Corporation and 2nd respondent jointly filed
counter statement in all the claim petitions and denied all the averments made
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
by the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions. According to the appellant and
2nd respondent, Harihara Sudhan, driver of the Santro Car, while trying to
overtake another vehicle, lost control and invited accident. FIR is also
registered against the deceased Harihara Sudhan. The 1st respondent, knowing
fully well that the Santro Car has been insured with the 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company only for Personal Accident Coverage and the claimants
are not entitled for compensation more than Rs.2,00,000/-, with an ulterior
motive to claim compensation, has purposefully impleaded the 2 nd respondent
and appellant in the claim petitions. Hence, the 2 nd respondent and appellant-
Transport Corporation are not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st
respondent. The 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation and income of
the deceased, injuries sustained and treatment taken by the deceased, to claim
compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st
respondent in all the claim petitions are excessive and prayed for dismissal of
the claim petitions.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
6.The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement in all
the claim petitions and denied all the averments made by the 1 st respondent in
the claim petitions. According to the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, the
accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd
respondent/driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation.
The complaint given against the 2nd respondent is also pending before the
Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. Hence, the appellant-Transport Corporation
and 2nd respondent are liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. At the
time of accident, the deceased driver Harihara Sudhan did not possess valid
Registration Certificate for the Santro Car and thereby, violated policy
conditions. In any event, the 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation
and income of the deceased, injuries sustained and treatment taken to claim
compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
7.Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3
and 34 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P34. The appellant examined
four witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.4 and marked 9 documents as Exs.R1 to R9.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
8.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the 2nd
respondent/driver of the Bus as well as Harihara Sudhan/driver of the Car,
fixed 60:40 negligence on both of them respectively, awarded a sum of
Rs.3,75,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,93,000/- and Rs.9,19,340/- as
compensation to the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions respectively. The
Tribunal directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay 60% and 3rd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay 40% of the award amount as
compensation to the 1st respondent.
9.Against the said common award dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P.
Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, the appellant – Transport Corporation has
come out with the present appeals.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation contended that on the date of accident, the 2nd respondent/driver
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation was driving the Bus
at normal speed from Tiruppur to Theni. When the Bus was proceeding near
Kundadam pirivu, the Santro Car bearing Registration No.TN-38-AB-1666,
which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner,
overtook another Car, without seeing the on coming Bus in an uncontrollable
speed. The driver of the Bus, on seeing the Santro Car, turned the Bus to the
extreme left side of the road, applied sudden brake and stopped the Bus in
order to avoid collusion with the Car and to save the lives of the passengers
who traveled in the Bus. Inspite of the same, the accident occurred. The
accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the Santro Car. FIR
was also registered only against Harihara Sudhan, driver of the Car. The
criminal case is pending against the driver of the Car. The appellant proved
the negligence on the part of the driver of the Car by examining independent
witness, an Auto driver as R.W.3. The Tribunal erroneously held that the
driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation also
contributed 60% negligence to the accident, instead of fixing entire negligence
on the part of the driver of the Car. The learned counsel appearing for the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
appellant further submitted that the total compensation granted by the
Tribunal in all the claim petitions are excessive and prayed for setting aside
the common award of the Tribunal.
11.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in all
the appeals made submissions in support of the common award passed by the
Tribunal and submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
in all the claim petitions are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of all the
appeals.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company contended that accident occurred only due to the negligence on the
part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport
Corporation. The 1st respondent has impleaded the 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company only as a formal party. The Tribunal erroneously fixed 40%
negligence on the part of the driver of the Santro Car and directed the 3 rd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay 40% of the compensation to the 1st
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
respondent in all the claim petitions and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
13.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company
and perused the entire materials available on record.
14.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the 1 st
respondent that while the driver of the Car viz., Harihara Sudhan was driving
the Santro Car from Tiruppur to Dharapuram, the 2 nd respondent/driver of the
Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, who was coming in the
opposite direction, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the Santro Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the following persons
sustained fatal injuries - Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi
and Sudha. Based on these averments, the 1st respondent filed 4 claim
petitions, claiming various amounts as compensation for the death of Minor
Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha. To substantiate his
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
stand, the 1st respondent examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked
34 documents as Exs.P1 to P34. On the other hand, it is the case of the
appellant-Transport Corporation that while the 2nd respondent/driver of the
Bus was driving the Bus at a moderate speed, the driver of the Santro Car
drove the Santro Car in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake
another Car. On seeing the same, the driver of the Bus applied sudden brake
and stopped the Bus. Inspite of the same, the accident has occurred. To
substantiate their contention, the appellant-Transport Corporation examined 4
witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.4. The driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1
and independent witness/Auto driver was examined as R.W.3. The Tribunal
considering the fact that FIR was lodged by the driver of the Bus within one
hour, furnishing the details of the deceased persons, did not accept the
contents of FIR. Further, taking note of photographs marked as Ex.R7 and
evidence and damage caused to the Santro Car, held that the Santro Car
would have been shifted for clearing the traffic. The Police did not examine
R.W.1 and R.W.2. The Tribunal considering the place of accident and Motor
Vehicle Inspector's report, held that both the drivers are responsible for the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
accident and fixed 60% negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus and
40% on the part of the driver of the Santro Car. Considering all the above
materials and the fact that the Bus is a heavy vehicle, there is no error in the
finding of the Tribunal fixing 60% negligence on the driver of the Bus.
15.As far as the quantum of compensation granted in C.M.A.Nos.1181
& 1200 of 2022 [M.C.O.P.Nos.207 and 211 of 2012] are concerned, the 1st
respondent claimed that the deceased Kalavathy was working as a Sales
Supervisor in Shri Kumaran Cottons, Tiruppur and was earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month; deceased Sudha was running a business as a
Proprietor in the name and style 'Sri Venkateswara Enterprises' and was
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The 1st respondent failed to prove the
avocation and income of both the deceased persons. In the absence of any
evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed the notional
income of the deceased Kalavathy and Sudha at Rs.6,000/- and Rs.6,500/- per
month respectively. The accident is of the year 2011. The notional income
fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal, after fixing the notional
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
income, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of both the deceased
persons and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & another], applied the correct multipliers '11' & '17'
respectively and awarded compensation towards loss of income in both the
claim petitions. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
different heads are not excessive, warranting interference by this Court.
16.As far as the quantum of compensation granted in C.M.A.Nos.1163
and 1169 of 2022 [M.C.O.P.Nos.205 and 195 of 2012] are concerned, the
deceased minor Pranav Kanna was aged 4 years and minor Suruthiksha was 3
months old at the time of accident. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of
the deceased minor children at Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per annum
respectively and as per II Schedule, applied multiplier '15' and awarded
compensation towards loss of income. This Court, in number of cases,
following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (1) SCC
244 (Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others), has fixed annual
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
income of the deceased minor at Rs.30,000/-. In view of the same, the annual
income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- are not
excessive. There is no error in the award of the Tribunal warranting
interference by this Court.
17.In the result, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and
the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,75,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-,
Rs.5,93,000/- and Rs.9,19,340/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit are confirmed. The
appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-,
Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.3,55,800/- and Rs.5,51,604/-, being 60% of the award
amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited,
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012
respectively. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.2,37,200/- and Rs.3,67,736/- being
40% of the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of
2012. On such deposit, the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos. 205, 195, 207 &
211 of 2012 is permitted to withdraw the respective award amount, along
with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn,
by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J)
20.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The III Additional District Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Dharapuram, Tiruppur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
(gsa)
C.M.A. Nos.1163, 1169, 1181 & 1200 of 2022
20.06.2022
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
