Madras High Court

The Managing Director vs Thavamani on 6 April, 2023

                                                                               C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 06.04.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                             C.M.A.(MD)No.1072 of 2022
                                                          and
                                             C.M.P.(MD)No.10816 of 2022
                                                          and
                                           Cross.Objection (MD)No.6 of 2023

                C.M.A.(MD)No.1072 of 2022:

                The Managing Director,
                State Express Transport Corporation
                      Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
                Thiruvalluvar, Pallavan Salai,
                Chennai.                                            ...Appellant/Respondent

Vs.

1.Thavamani

2.Karnan

3.Kamal

4.Kennedy ...Respondents/Petitioners

PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order dated 10.03.2022 in M.C.O.P.No. 393 of 2015 on the file of the Special District Court Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy.

CROSS OBJECTION (MD)No.6 of 2023:

1.Thavamani

2.Karnan

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

3.Kamal

4.Kennedy ...Cross objectors/Respondents/Petitioners vs.

The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd., Thiruvalluvar, Pallavan Salai, Chennai. ...Respondent/Appellant/Respondent

PRAYER: This Cross Objection is filed under Section 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, to modify the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.393 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Tirchirppalli, dated 13.03.2022 and enhance the compensation amount.

In CMA(MD)No.1072 of 2022:

                                          For Appellant               : Mr.K.A.Thirumaliappan
                                          For Respondents             : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
                          In Cross.Obj.(MD)No.13 of 2022:


                                          For Cross Objectors         : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
                                          For Respondent              : Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan


                                                  COMMON JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been

filed challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

Tribunal/Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P. No.393 of 2015, dated

10.03.2022.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per

their rank before the Trial Court.

3.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal, are as follows:-

(i) The deceased was aged about 27 years bachelor. He was running a

brick kiln on his own. On 17.01.2014 at about 03.30 a.m., while the deceased was

standing in the road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-AN-0160 came in a

rash and negligent manner from north to south, dashed against the deceased. As a

result, he succumbed to injuries there itself. FIR was also registered against the

driver of the Transport Corporation. Hence, compensation of Rs.25 lakhs was

claimed.

(ii)The first and second claimants are the parents of the deceased and the

third and fourth claimants are the brothers of the deceased.

(iii) The respondent/Transport Corporation had contended that the bus

was driven in a cautious manner and the driver of the Eicher Lorry, which was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

proceeding ahead the bus, applied sudden break and hence, the accident was

occurred.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were

examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the respondent R.W.1

was examined and Ex.R1was marked. Ex.C1 was also marked.

5.The tribunal, considering the evidence of the eye witness and FIR filed

against the driver of the bus, found that the negligence is on the part of the driver

of the bus and the contention of the respondent that the accident was occurred only

by the Eicher lorry had not been established. Hence, the tribunal had fixed the

compensation as follows:

                        S.No.                      Particulars                     Amount
                        1.              Loss of Dependency               Rs.6,42,600/-
                        2.              Transport Charges                Rs. 7,000/-
                        3.              Loss of Estate                   Rs. 10,000/-

4. Loss of Filial Consortium for Rs. 35,000/-

first claimant

5. Loss of Filial Consortium for Rs.1,05,000/-

the claimants 2 to 4

6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-

Total Rs.8,09,600/-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by

the Transport Corporation. The claimants have also filed Cross Objection seeking

enhancement of compensation.

6.I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also

perused the materials available on record.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submits

that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver

of the Transport Corporation. The tribunal has erred in awarding compensation

for loss of consortium to the first claimant.

8.The learned counsel for the claimants/Cross Objectors would submit

that the Tribunal having rightly assessed the negligence on the part of the driver of

the bus, had adopted monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.4,500/-, which is

very low. The deceased was aged about 27 years. Even the concept of minimum

wages is applied, he could have earned as sum of Rs.12,000/- per month.

Therefore, the income fixed by the tribunal has to be enhanced.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

9.In view of the above submission, now the point arises for consideration

in this appeal is:

1.Whether the Tribunal is right in awarding compensation and

adopting monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-?

2.Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation?

10.The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 and FIR, found

that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus, which resulted

in the accident. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the

Transport Corporation that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the

Eicher lorry, the Tribunal disbelieved the said stand taking note of the conduct of

the driver of the bus that he remained silent and he had not taken any steps to

inform the same to the Investigation Officer even at the relevant point of time.

The investigation was also proceeded only against the driver of the bus and the

name board of the bus was also seized from the place of occurrence. The Motor

Vehicle Inspection report also proves that there was a damage in the bus.

Considering all these facts, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that only

the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the vehicle and caused the accident

and said finding does not warrant any interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

11.The Tribunal had fixed only Rs.4,500/- as monthly income. It is

relevant to note that the deceased was aged about 27 years and was running a brick

kiln of his own. Though the said fact had not been established, the fact remains

that the deceased was a bachelor and he was hale and healthy. Even by doing any

other works, he could have earned a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal

had not taken the same into account. Accordingly, the notional income of the

deceased is fixed at Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) and 40% of the

income (i.e.,Rs.3,000/-) is added towards future prospects. Considering the fact

that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident, 1/2 of the income is

deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, the monthly income of the

deceased is fixed at Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only).

12.Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss

of estate, Rs.35,000/-, each under the head of loss of filial consortium and

Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are also very meager. Hence, this

Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards loss

of estate, Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to each claimants towards

loss of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards

funeral expenses.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2022

13.In fine, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as stated below:

                        S.No.                      Particulars                      Amount
                        1.              Loss of Dependency                Rs.15,30,000/-
                        2.              Transport Charges                 Rs.     7,000/-
                        3.              Loss of Estate                    Rs.   15,000/-
                        4.              Loss of Filial Consortium for Rs.       40,000/-
                                        first claimant

5. Loss of Filial Consortium for Rs. 1,20,000/-

the claimants 2 to 4

6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-

Total Rs.17,27,000/-

14.In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Transport

Corporation is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the claimants is allowed

and the award granting compensation of Rs.8,09,600/- made by the Tribunal is

modified as stated above.

15.The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount

i.e., Rs.17,27,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand only) as

modified by this Court with interest at the rate of 7.5%, to the credit of

M.C.O.P.No.393 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims