Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Isakkiammal on 23 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore .. Appellant
-Vs.-
G.Pandaram (died)
1. Isakkiammal
2. Ganapathi Sundaram
3. Prabakaran .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 137 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010
passed in M.C.O.P.No.1279 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court) at Krishnagiri.
For appellant ... Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
For Respondent ... Served-No Appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The Transport-Corporation has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal questioning the negligence and the quantum of compensation.
2. The parties are referred in the same array as before the Tribunal.
The brief facts for disposing of the appeal are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner, who is the father of the deceased Kathirvel, had
filed M.C.O.P.No.1279 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Additional District Court) Krishnagiri seeking a compensation of
a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident
involving the respondent's bus. It is the contention of the petitioner that on
27.09.2014 at around 17.30 hours, the deceased was travelling as an Owner-
cum-driver of mini lorry, bearing Registration No.KA.05 AB 6759. One
Sundar was driving the said lorry. While so, the bus belonging to the
respondent-Transport Corporation came in the opposite direction on the
wrong side and dashed the mini lorry, as a result of which, the passengers in
the bus sustained injuries and the said Kathirvel sustained fatal injuries and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
died on the spot. The petitioner would contend that the accident had
occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the respondent-bus.
3. The respondent-Transport Corporation had filed a counter
denying the accident and stating that the accident had occurred only on
account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini lorry and
that the petitioner has come to the Court with false case.
4. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence, particularly, the
evidence of P.W2-Eye witness and F.I.R-P1 had held that the accident had
occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the respondent-bus. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.6,93,000/-. The Tribunal had adopted a monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal
expenses and living expenses fixed the loss of future income at a sum of
Rs.6,48,000/- applying a multiplier of 18. Challenging the same, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
appellant /Transport Corporation is before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport
Corporation. Pending the M.C.O.P, the petitioner had died and his legal
representatives have been brought on record. The respondents, despite being
served, has not entered appearance.
6. The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Corporation
taking into account the evidence of P.W2, the cleaner of the mini lorry, who
is an eye witness. They have also perused Ex.P1-F.I.R, which has been
registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation to arrive at a
conclusion. I see no reason to interfere with the above finding. Likewise,
the deceased Kathirvel is a driver and the petitioner has marked the original
driving licence of the deceased as well as the copy of the R.C.Book which
would show that the deceased was a driver. The Tribunal has fixed the
monthly notional income of Rs.4,500/- which appears to be reasonable and
after deducting amounts towards personal expenses and adopting applicable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
multiplier of 18, the compensation has been arrived at. I see no reason to
interfere with the same.
7. In view of the above discussion, the quantum arrived at by the
Tribunal is very reasonable and requires no re-consideration. Accordingly,
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.09.2022
srn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court)
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
P.T.ASHA.J
srn
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
23.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
