Madras High Court
The Commandant vs Bhuvanesewari on 1 March, 2022
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
and CMP.No.9091 of 2021
The Commandant,
TSP,
VBN, Avadi,
Chennai ...appellant
vs.
1. Bhuvanesewari
2. K.Raghul Raj
3. K.Kaviraj
4. Kamalammal ...respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2020
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate
Judge), Chengalpattu in MCOP.No.197 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.Edwin Prabhakar
For Respondents : Notice served - No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J]
This appeal is directed against the award and decree passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge),
Chengalpattu in MCOP.No.197 of 2011.
2. The claim petition was filed by the wife, 2 children and mother of
the deceased Krishnan. It is their case that the deceased was waiting
opposite to Dr.Kesavan Hospital at GST Road near Sriperumbudur Junction
on the extreme left side on 05.09.2011 at 06.30 hours. At that time, a Bus
bearing Registration No.TN-20-G-0321, which was proceeding from
Chennai to Chengalpattu, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, hit against the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained
multiple grievous injuries all over the body and died. A criminal case was
registered against the driver of the Bus in Cr.No.815 of 2011 before the D-6
Maraimalai Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 279 and
304A IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
3. The claimants have further stated that the deceased died at the age
of 39 years and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a
Security Guard in ISS Security Bureau and Field Officer in PACL INDIA
Ltd. Since the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the Bus, the owner is liable to pay compensation of Rs.46,35,000/-, which
was restricted to Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. In the counter, the appellant has stated that the accident had not
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus, but
in fact, the deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN-19-D-8814 and suddenly, attempted to cross the road and thereby,
he invited the accident. Hence, the claimants are not entitled to get any
compensation.
5. The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. PW2 is
the de-facto complainant in the criminal case and he had narrated the
manner of accident in his evidence. Ex.P1 a copy of FIR and Ex.P2 a copy
of the charge sheet were relied upon to prove that the driver of the Bus was
responsible for the accident. However, the appellant places reliance on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
Ex.R1 judgment in STC No.52 of 2015, in support of their case and
submitted that the driver was acquitted by the Criminal Court. Though
inconsistent statements were made with regard to the driver of the offending
vehicle at the time of the accident, but eventually, the Tribunal held that the
driver of the Bus was negligent. In the present appeal, there is no dispute
with regard to the findings on negligence, but it has been filed only
questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant Mr.Edwin Prabhakar urged that without any material, the Tribunal
has wrongly fixed income and also added 50% towards future prospects
contrary to the decision of the Apex Court.
7. Though the respondents have been served and their names are also
printed in the cause list, none appears for them.
8. In the case on hand, in the claim petition it has been clearly stated
that the deceased Krishnan was working as Security Guard and Field
Officer in PACL INDIA Ltd. and receiving a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
In support of their case, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, PACL Identity Card and PAN
Card of the deceased, were filed. Since the claimants failed to examine the
employer of the deceased and salary certificate was also not filed, the
Tribunal fixed notional monthly income as Rs.8,000/- and added 50% for
future prospects. However, the oral evidence of PW1 would establish that
the deceased was working permanently in a Private Company, hence, the
income of the deceased can be safely fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month to meet
the ends of justice. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, the deceased would be
entitled for 40% addition towards future prospects, and thus, the total
income is arrived as Rs.12,600/- [9,000 + 3,600], from which, 1/4 is
deducted for his personal expenses, therefore, the contribution to the family
comes to Rs.9,450/- [12,600 - 3,150]. Considering the fact that the deceased
died at the age of 39 years, the proper multiplier 15 is applied and the
Pecuniary Loss is arrived at Rs.17,01,000/- [9,450 x 15 x 12].
9. In addition to that, this Court awards Rs.40,000/- to the claimants
towards Loss of Consortium; Rs.80,000/- towards Parental Consortium;
Rs.40,000/- towards Filial Consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate;
and Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. In total, the claimant is entitled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
to Rs.18,91,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of realization. Thus, the total
compensation payable to the claimants is re-calculated and tabulated below:
S. Heads under which Amount Amount
No. amount is awarded by awarded by the awarded by the
the Tribunal Tribunal in Rs. Tribunal in Rs.
1. Pecuniary Loss 16,30,000 17,01,000
2. Non Pecuniary Loss 3,50,000 -
3. Loss of Estate - 15,000
4. Funeral Expenses - 15,000
5. Loss of Consortium - 40,000
6. Loss of Filial - 40,000
Consortium
7. Loss of Parental - 80,000
Consortium
Total 19,80,000 18,91,000
10. The sum of Rs.19,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to
Rs.18,91,000/-. Out of the award amount, claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to
Rs.5,00,000/- each and the fourth claimant is entitled to Rs.3,91,000/-. The
appellant is directed to deposit the above modified award amount with
proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
award amount as apportioned above, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, together with proportionate interest and costs.
11. With the above directions, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S, J] [V.S.G., J]
01.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/8
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.1714 of 2021
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/8
