The Divisional Controller vs B.Subbarathinam
2022 Latest Caselaw 4453 Mad

                                                                                   C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED :    08.03.2022

                                                        CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
                                                 and
                                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                                  C.M.A. No.456 of 2022



                The Divisional Controller,
                KSRTC, Davanagere.                                         ...   Appellant


                                                            Vs.

                1.B.Subbarathinam
                2.Ananda
                3.Karnataka Managing Director,
                  KSRTC, Bengaluru.                                        ...   Respondents
                   (Respondents 2 and 3 remained
                      exparte in the Court below)


                          Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2021 passed in
                M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub
                Court, Tiruttani.


                                  For Appellant      : Mr.T.Thiyagarajan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.1/7
                                                                              C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

                                                 JUDGMENT

Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

Challenging Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruttani in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2017, the present appeal has

been filed by the KSRTC.

Facts in brief:-

2. This is a case of fatal accident. The claimant is the mother of the

deceased Sreenivasulu. The claimant would state that on 25.12.2015, the

deceased travelled as a passenger in a Bus bearing registration KA-17-F-1281.

When the said bus was proceeding near Siddapura Gate, another bus bearing

registration No. KA-17-F-1632, which came from the opposite direction tried to

overtake a car. In that process, the driver of the bus bearing registration

No.KA-17-1632 lost his control and dashed against the bus in which the

deceased was travelling. In the impact, the claimant's son and 5 other

passengers died on the spot. The claimant would further state that the

deceased was 34 years old and working as a PG Assistant, and therey earning a

sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, she claimed compensation of a sum of

Rs.2,00,00,000/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/7 C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

3. In the counter, the KSRTC denied and disputed the manner of

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and its liability to pay the

compensation.

4. The claim petition was tried by the Tribunal and to substantiate the

case, on the side of the claimant P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the KSRTC, one Ravi was examined as R.W.1

and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence

held that the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-17-F-1281 was

responsible for the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs.61,63,000/- and

directed to pay the said sum along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on

Rs.40,75,104/-. Assailing the award, the KSRTC has filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.T.Thiyagarajan would contend

that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent of the driver

of the bus bearing registration No. KA-17-F-1632 / opposite vehicle and

therefore, Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligence on the opposite

vehicle. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Tribunal failed to

note that except the salary slip for the month of December 2015, no prior salary

documents are filed to show that the deceased was drawning a sum of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/7 C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

Rs.42,499/-. It is further contended that the award of the Tribunal is exorbitant

and excessive and it has to be reduced.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials

available on record.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence of driver of the opposite

vehicle, and therefore, the entire liability ought to have been fixed on the

opposite vehicle. Admittedly, in the case on hand, as observed by the Tribunal,

the question of contributory negligence will not arise in this case, as both the

vehicles belong to KSRTC.

9. Insofar as quantum is concerned, it is to be noted that the Tribunal by

relying on Ex.P6, determined the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.42,499/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, deducted half the amount and

by applying multiplier '16', arrived the total loss of dependency at Rs.40,75,104/-

(Rs.42,449/- / 2 x 12 x 16 ). The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of

Rs.20,37,552/- towards future prospects. Considering the fact that the deceased

was working as PG Assistant in Government Higher Secondary School,

K.G.Kandigai, and if the deceased would have been alive, he could have got a

promotion and could have received the higher salary and hence, a sum of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/7 C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

Rs.20,37,552/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future prospects is proper.

Further, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium;

Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges;

and Rs.5,000/- towards damages to cellphone, watch and clothes and also

deducted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards interim compensation, which was

already granted. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.61,63,000/- along

with interst at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.40,75,104/-. In our opinion, the

appellant has not made out any ground to upset the finding reached by the

Trbunal, hence the award is hereby confirmed.

10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

Award and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2017 dated 20.09.2021, passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruttani, is confirmed. The rate

of interest fixed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. The appellant/ KSRTC is

directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less

the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent /

claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the amount already

withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs. There is no

order as to costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/7 C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

[M.K.K.S., J] [V.S.G., J] 08.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking order: Yes/No

jer/rns

To

1. The Sub Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruttani.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/7 C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

jer/rns

C.M.A. No.456 of 2022

08.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7/7