Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs V.Meignanavel on 12 October, 2022
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.16838 of 2022
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.
No.37, Mettupalayam Road
Coimbatore – 641 043. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.V.Meignanavel
2.M.Saraswathy
3.T.Kasimayan .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2018 made
in M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
For R1 & R2 : Mr.I.Periasamy
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation against the award dated 01.02.2018 made in
M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Coimbatore.
2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is 2nd respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Coimbatore. The respondents 1 & 2 filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
their son viz., V.M.Balakumar, who died in the accident that took place on
18.12.2013.
3.According to the respondents 1 & 2, on the date of accident, i.e., on
18.12.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., while the deceased Balakumar was riding in
his Honda Unicon motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-38-BJ-4920 via
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
Kanuvai to reach Luna Nagar, on Thadagam to Coimbatore Road, from North
to South direction, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-
2469, who was coming in the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle from behind and caused the
accident. In the accident, right front wheel of the bus ran over said
Balakumar, due to which, he died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents 1 &
2 filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for the death of their
son as against the 3rd respondent, driver of the bus and appellant/Transport
Corporation.
4.The 3rd respondent, driver of the bus remained exparte before the
Tribunal.
5.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and stated that at the time of
accident, the driver of the bus after alighting and boarding the passengers and
after getting whistle from the conductor, drove the same carefully and slowly
by keeping to his left. The rider of the motorcycle, deceased Balakumar, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
was coming in the opposite direction, overtook another vehicle at high speed,
lost his balance and dashed against the right side of the bus and invited the
accident. The deceased Balakumar alone is solely responsible for the accident.
Mere filing of F.I.R. against the driver of the bus is not a substantial piece of
evidence to come to a conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Therefore, the
appellant/Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the
respondents 1 & 2. In any event, the compensation claimed by the
respondents 1 & 2 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, one M.Rajendran, was examined as P.W.1, one
Madhuram Kristina, HR Manager of the Company, where the deceased was
working at the time of accident, was examined as P.W.2, one Mohankumar,
eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.3 and 26 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P26. The appellant/Transport Corporation did not let in
any oral and documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.30,54,000/- as compensation to the
respondents 1 & 2.
8.Against the said award dated 01.02.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.820 of
2014, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation contended that the accident has occurred only due to rash and
negligent riding by the deceased Balakumar. The Tribunal ought to have fixed
negligence on the part of the deceased Balakumar, rider of the motorcycle.
The Tribunal cannot fix negligence on the driver of the bus relying on F.I.R.
Mere registering of F.I.R. against the driver of the bus cannot be a ground for
fixing negligence on him. The learned counsel further contended that the
Tribunal failed to note that the respondents 1 & 2 did not file any valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
document to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In the
absence of any evidence, the Tribunal erroneously fixed Rs.20,000/- as
monthly income of the deceased, which is excessive. The amounts awarded by
the Tribunal under different heads are excessive and prayed for setting aside
the award of the Tribunal.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 made his
submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and perused the entire
materials on record.
12.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the
respondents 1 & 2 that on the date of accident, i.e., on 18.12.2013 at about
7.30 p.m., while the deceased Balakumar was riding in his motorcycle via
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
Kanuvai to reach Luna Nagar, on Thadagam to Coimbatore Road, the 3rd
respondent, driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport
Corporation, who was coming in the opposite direction, drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle rode by the deceased,
due to which, right front wheel of the bus ran over said Balakumar and
caused the accident. To substantiate this contention, they examined one
Mohankumar, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.3, who deposed about the
manner of accident and marked rough sketch as Ex.P3 and F.I.R. as Ex.P1,
which was registered against the 3rd respondent, driver of the bus. The
Tribunal considering Ex.P3/rough sketch, held that the rider of the motorcycle
rode the same in proper direction while the driver of the bus, who was coming
in the opposite direction, drove the same on his extreme right side of the road
in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the
accident. The appellant/Transport Corporation did not examine the driver of
the bus, 3rd respondent or has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.3, Ex.P1/F.I.R., Ex.P3/rough sketch and in the absence of any contra
evidence on the part of the appellant/Transport Corporation, held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 3rd respondent,
driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation. There is
no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this
Court.
13.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the
respondents 1 & 2 that at the time of accident, the deceased Balakumar was
working as Associate Programmer Analyst in AES Technologies (India) Pvt.
Limited, Coimbatore and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. To
substantiate the said contention, the respondents 1 & 2 examined one
Madhuram Kristina, HR Manager of the Company, in which, the deceased
was working at the time of accident, as P.W.2 and marked pay slip for the
month of December 2013 as Ex.P25. The Tribunal considering the evidence of
P.W.2 and Ex.P25, fixed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly income of the
deceased. The appellant/Transport Corporation did not let in any contra
evidence to disprove the documents filed by the respondents 1 & 2. The
deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P4/post-mortem
certificate. The Tribunal, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), has rightly granted
40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier '18'. The
deceased died as a bachelor and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50%
towards personal expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.30,24,000/- towards loss of dependancy, which is not excessive. In
addition to that, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate, which are just and proper. The
respondents 1 & 2, who are parents of the deceased, lost their son at his
young age. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of
love & affection. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also not
excessive warranting interference by this Court.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.30,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents 1 & 2 along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 & 2 are
permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount, as per the
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
(V.M.V.,J) (S.M.,J)
12.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
kj
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
and
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
kj
C.M.A.No.2174 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.16838 of 2022
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
