Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Jayanthi on 29 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2730 of 2021
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Villupuram Division,
Kanchipuram District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Jayanthi
2.Mohana
3.Naveena
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2020 passed in
MCOP No.107 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (In the
VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Varadhakamaraj
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MCOP No.107 of 2015
dated 23.01.2020.
2.This is the case of fatal. The case of the claimants is that on 08.09.2014 at
about 22.15 hours, the deceased Bharath was riding a motorcycle on
Kanchipuram-Vandavasi main road. When he was nearing TASMAC Shop
No.9415, a Government bus bearing Reg.No.TN-21-N-1633 driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner, dashed backside of his motorcycle. In the impact,
he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. The accident had
happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport
Corporation's bus. The first claimant is the mother and the claimants 2 and 3 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
the sisters of the deceased. Hence, they filed claim petition seeking compensation
of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed a counter disputing the manner
of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and its liability to pay the
compensation. It was also contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.
4.To substantiate the case, the first claimant herself examined as P.W.1.
One Viswanathan was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P.13 were marked.
On the side of the appellant/Transport Corporation, the Driver of the bus, namely,
Elumalai was examined as R.W.1, but no document was marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held
that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and awarded
compensation of Rs.20,14,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. Assailing the award, the appellant/Transport Corporation has
filed the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation
would submit that the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the driver of the
appellant Corporation was negligent and caused accident. He would further
submit that the Tribunal ought to have considered the conduct of the deceased not
wearing the helmet and fixed the contributory negligence. He would further
submit that in the absence of any material documents, the Tribunal fixed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, hence, the appellant is not liable
to pay any compensation.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants
Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj would submit that the impugned Judgement and Decree
awarding the aforesaid compensation is well reasoned and it requires no
interference and therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
8.We have considered the rival submission of the learned counsel appearing
on either side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
9.It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
the deceased was negligent at the time of accident, hence, the appellant is not
liable to pay compensation. A perusal of the records would show that to prove the
negligence, the claimant examined one Viswanathan (P.W.2), who is the
eyewitness to the accident. On the side of the appellant, though the driver of the
bus was examined as R.W.1, in his evidence, he had admitted that he was
suspended for the negligent driving at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal
fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus. We are of the opinion that the
negligence fixed by the Tribunal is correct and the same is confirmed.
10.Insofar as the quantum is concerned, it is the case of the claimants that
at the time of accident, the deceased was 20 years old bachelor and working as
Mason-cum-Bar Salesman and thereby, earning Rs.800/- and Rs.500/- per day,
but there is no proof to substantiate the same, hence, the Tribunal has fixed the
notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal by following the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609
(SC) and Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in 2009 TN MAC 1, applied proper multiplier to award
Rs.20,14,000/-. In the considered view of this Court, the award is just and
reasonable. We find no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the
Tribunal. This appeal has no merit.
11.For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the
same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
29.03.2022
skn
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.429 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2730 of 2021
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
