Madras High Court

K.Muruvammal vs Metropolitan Transport ... on 25 March, 2022

                                                                        CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                 DATED: 25.03.2022
                                                      CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
                                               CMA.No.834 of 2018
                                                      and
                                               CMA.No.385 of 2019
                                                      and
                                               CMP.No.1369 of 2019

                     1.K.Muruvammal
                     2.K.Arivazhagan
                     3.K.Amulu                               ...Appellants in CMA No.834 of 2018

                     Metropolitan Transport Corporation
                     (Chennai Division) Ltd., rep. by its
                     Managing Director, Pallavan Salai,
                     Chennai – 600 002.
                                                              ...Appellant in CMA No.385 of 2019

                                                            v.

                     Metropolitan Transport Corporation
                     (Chennai Division) Ltd., rep. by its
                     Managing Director, Pallavan Salai,
                     Chennai – 600 002.                           ...Respondent in CMA No.834 of

1.K.Muruvammal

2.K.Arivazhagan

3.K.Amulu ...Respondents in CMA.No.385 of 2019

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

CMA No.834 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.2017 in MACTOP No.4676 of 2013 on the file of the II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai.

CMA.No.385 of 2019 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.08.2017 passed in MCOP No.4676 of 2013 by the II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai.

For Appellants : Mr.N.M.Muthurajan in CMA No.834 of 2018 For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan in CMA No.834 of 2018 For Appellants : Mr.S.Swaminathan in CMA No.385 of 2019 For Respondent : Mr.N.M.Muthurajan in CMA No.385 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT

Both the Appeals arise from the order rendered in MACTOP

No.4676 of 2013 on the file of the II Court of Small Causes Chennai, by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

order dated 28.08.2017. The said Original Petition was preferred for the

unfortunate death of K.Anbalagan, who was travelling in a bus of the

respondent before the Tribunal / Appellant in CMA No.385 of 2019 /

Metropolitan Transport Corporation Chennai Division, bearing Route No.11-

H and fell out from the bus around 10.10 p.m, in the night on 19.05.2013.

On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal had determined that the claimants

were entitled for compensation of Rs.14,71,000/-. Questioning that

particular quantum granted, the claimants have filed CMA.No.834 of 2018

and questioning the quantum granted again, the Transport Corporation had

also filed CMA No.385 of 2019.

2.The deceased K.Anbalagan was said to be a B.Com graduate

and it was stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.18,500/- per month, in

view of his occupation as Assistant Sales Manager at Royal Steel and

Roofing at Chennai. The accident occurred on 19.05.2013 around 10.10 p.m

in the night when the deceased K.Anbalagan had boarded a Government

MTC bus bearing Reg. No.TN-01-N-8015 at Puducherry Guest House Bus

Stop, K.K.Nagar. He had to travel to Triplicane. When the bus turned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

towards its right to go Ramasamy Salai, from West to East the deceased was

thrown out of the bus and the bus ran over him, and as a result, he died on

the spot.

3.However, quite immediately, thereafter, at around 12.00 hours in

the night, a First Information Report had been lodged with the jurisdictional

Police namely, J-3 Guindy Traffic Investigation Police. They had taken up

further investigation of the case and a document is also available to show

that they had also filed a final report placing the cause of the accident on the

driver of the bus.

4.A counter statement had been filed by the Transport

Corporation, denying that the accident ever happened and further stating

that information had not been given by the crew members of the bus

immediately and but only later was information given. It had also been

stated that the bus had completed its schedule trips for the day and it would

be highly impropable to hold that the bus was involved in the accident. It

was stated that the bus had actually come to K.K.Nagar Depot at 21:58

hours due to breakdown.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

5.On the basis of the evidence available, the Tribunal had granted

a total award of Rs.14,71,000/- as follows:

                                                 Heads                                Amounts
                         Loss of Dependency                                        Rs.12,96,000/-
                         Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.50,000 x 3)                  Rs.1,50,000/-
                         Funeral Expense                                               Rs.25,000/-
                                                  Total                            Rs.14,71,000/-

6.In the order, the Tribunal took up for determination the first

aspect namely, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of bus. In this connection, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of PW-

1 who stated that the deceased had boarded the bus at Puducherry Guest

House Bus Stop, K.K.Nagar to travel up to Triplicane. The witness PW-2

stated the manner in which the accident had occurred and also stated that

the deceased had been thrown out of the bus and that the bus ran over the

deceased. Ex.P1, First Information Report was registered in J-3, Guindy

Traffic Investigation in Crime No.380/S3/2013 under Sections 279 and 304

– A of IPC. The final report was also filed against the driver of the bus.

Ex.P1 was the copy of the First Information Report and Ex.P4 was the copy

of the final report. They both corroborated the manner in which it was stated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

the accident had occurred.

7.In view of the above mentioned facts, the Tribunal held that the

accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent manner in which the

bus was driven. I would affirm that particular finding.

8.Thereafter, the Tribunal also held that the Transport Corporation

should bear the compensation awarded since the bus was not insured.

9.With respect to the compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal

had examined Ex.P8 copy of cash voucher of M/s.Royal Steel and Roofing

Chennai and the evidence of PW-3. But however, PW-3 did not mark any

documentary evidence to show that either the deceased was working as

Assistant Manager or that he was earning a sum of Rs.18,500/- per month

as claimed by the claimants. In view of that particular fact, the Tribunal had

to determine the notional income and accordingly, the Tribunal had granted

a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards monthly income. Let me not dispute that

particular finding.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

10.The deceased was aged 25 years and that fact had been

established by Ex.P2 and also by Ex.P6, copy of the Transfer Certificate.

The Tribunal however, determined the age of the deceased as 23 years. The

1st claimant was the mother and the 2nd and 3rd claimants were the own

brother and sister of the deceased. Since their names were found in the

ration card, they can be categorized as dependants.

11.The Tribunal then proceeded to determine the loss of income.

The monthly income was taken at Rs.8,000/-. The future prospects had been

taken at 50% of monthly income. The monthly income of the deceased was

fixed at Rs.8,000/-. The future prospectus would be Rs.4,000/-. The total

comes to Rs.12,000/-. If 50% is deducted (Rs.6,000/-) towards personal

expenses, the actual monthly income would come to Rs.6,000/- per month

and the income per year would be Rs.72,000/-. The multiplier that had to be

adopted is '18'. Therefore, Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.72,000 x 18) was awarded

towards loss of income.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

12.In view of the fact that PW-3, the employer of the deceased had

not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the monthly income

of the deceased, I have to affirm the finding of the Tribunal and also that the

compensation to be granted for loss of income would be Rs.12,96,000/-. The

Tribunal had however granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the three

claimants under the head loss of love and affection. That has to be reduced

to Rs.40,000/- which would indicate that total the amount towards loss of

love and affection to the three claimants would be Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000

x 3). The Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.25,000 towards Funeral

Expenses. That amount cannot be granted and a sum of Rs.10,000/- alone

can be granted towards Funeral Expenses. No amounts had been granted

towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- is therefore granted towards loss of

Estate. The total compensation now payable would be Rs.14,41,000/-. The

enhanced compensation breakup is as follows:

                                                 Heads                                Amounts
                         Loss of Dependency                                        Rs.12,96,000/-
                         Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.40,000 x 3)                  Rs.1,20,000/-
                         Funeral Expense                                               Rs.10,000/-
                         Loss of Estate                                                Rs.15,000/-
                                                  Total                            Rs.14,41,000/-




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           CMA.Nos.834 of 2018 & 385 of 2019

13.The Tribunal had granted the rate of interest at 9% per annum

and which is not proper. I would grant interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum.

14.CMA.No.834 of 2018 is disposed of, reducing the

compensation which had been determined as Rs.14,71,000/- to

Rs.14,41,000/-. The respondent in CMA.No.834 of 2018 is directed to

deposit the aforesaid claim amount with interest of 7.5% from the date of

filing of the petition till the date of deposit, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any amount had been

deposited pursuant to directions of this Court, the same may be adjusted. On

such deposit, the appellants in CMA.No.834 of 2018 are permitted to

withdraw the same.