Madras High Court

The Managing Director vs Palaniyayee on 24 April, 2023

    2023/MHC/2127




                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED: 24.04.2023

                                                   CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                     C.M.A(MD)Nos.14 and 180 of 2023
                                                  and
                                         C.M.P(MD)No.68 of 2023

                     C.M.A(MD)No.14 of 2023


                     The Managing Director,
                     The State Express Transport Corporation Limited,
                     No.2,Pallavan Salai,
                     Thiruvalluvar House,
                     Chennai – 600 002.                :Appellant/Appellant


                                            .vs.


                     1.Palaniyayee

                     2.Pappathi                       :Respondents/Respondents

                     C.M.A(MD)No.180 of 2023

                     1.Palaniyayee

                     2.Pappathi                       :Appellants/Petitioners

                                            /vs/

                     The Managing Director,
                     The State Express Transport Corporation Limited,
                     No.2, Pallavan Salai,
                     Thiruvalluvar House,
                     Chennai-600 002.                 :Respondent/Respondent



                     1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under
                     Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the           award aNd
                     decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1713 of 2018, dated 13.7.2022,on the
                     file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District
                     Court(MACT), Madurai.


                     C.M.A(MD)NO.14 of 2023


                                       For Appellant         :Mr.P.Prabhakaran

                                       For Respondents       :Mr.V.Sakthivel
                                            1 and 2

                      C.M.A(MD)NO.180 of 2023


                                       For Appellants        :Mr.V.Sakthivel

                                       For Respondent        :Mr.P.Prabhakaran



                                                  COMMONJUDGMENT
                                                  ************************

C.M.A(MD)No.14 of 2023 is filed by the appellant-Transport

Corporation challenging the award of the Tribunal, whereas,

C.M.A(MD)No.180 of 2023 is filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation.

2.The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as

follows:

The claimants are the sisters of the deceased, who was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis unmarried, aged about 55 years at the time of accident and he was

working as a Cook in one Senthil Mess and earning a sum of Rs.

15,000/- as monthly salary. While he was crossing on the left side of

the road in south to north direction near Othakadai, the transport

Corporation bus, coming in the same direction bearing

Registration NO. TN 01 AN 1109, in a rash and negligent manner

and also in a high speed, hit against the deceased and the deceased

died.

3.It is the contention of the Corporation that the bus wa

proceeding from Madurai to Melur main Road in a cautious

manner. The deceased who is in a drunken mood ,suddenly crossed

the road and as a result the accident took place and disputed the

liability.

4.On the side of the Petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were marked

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents,

one Veerapandi was examined as R.W.1 and no document was

marked.

5.The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 hold

that the driver of the transport Corporation bus is negligent in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis driving the bus and the awarded the compensation as follows:

                     1.For loss of income                     - Rs.5,08,200/-
                     2.For funeral expenses                  - Rs.15,000/=
                     3.For loss of estate                     -Rs.15,000/-
                     4.For transport expenses                - Rs.5000/-
                                                              ---------------------
                                             total            -Rs.5,43,200/-
                                                               ---------------------

6.The main submission of the learned counsel for the

Corporation was that the deceased suddenly crosed the road which

resulted in the acident. Further the claimants are the married

sisters of the deceased. Therefore, they are not dependants and

whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant in the

other appeal submitted that the Tribunal has taken the notional

income only at Rs.7000/-p.m., and according to him, the deceased

was the chief Cook in a Sathya Mess which wa proved by the

evidence of P.W.3.The Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional

income at a higher level.

7.Now the point that arose for consideration in these appeals

are as follows:

2.Whether the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable?

8.With regard to the submissions of the learned cousnel for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the transport Corporation that the deceased had suddenly crossed

the road and therefore, the accident had occurred, except the

interested testimony of R.W.1,no other witness was examined.

Further it is to be noted that even assuming that the pedestrain

suddenly crossed the road, the same cannot be a ground to

attribute negligence on his part. Admittedly, in this case, the

accident took place near Othakkadai bus stop and the driver of the

heavy vehicle/bus particularly buses are expected to slow down

the bus near bus stand. Even if the pedestrains move on the road,

care should have been taken by the drivers of the heavy vehicle

like bus. Therefore the defense taken by the Corporation that the

deceased died only on suddenly crossing the road cannot be

countenanced. Considering the place where the accident took

place, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal

fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the transport

Corporation bus cannot be found fault with.

9.As far as the married sisters are not dependants, it is

relevant to note that the legal representatives are entitled to make

claim application as per Sectiion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

10.Regarding the fact, the pedestrain crossing the road, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in 2004(2) TN

MAC 00 (DB) in the case of Pallavan Transport Corporation

Limited, represented by Managing Director,Pallavan Salai,

Madras – 600 002, wherein,it has been held as follows:

Pedestrian/victim crossing road at a place other than

pedestrain crossing – cannot be taken as victim

contributing to accident – It cannot be said that

whenever a person crosses road at a place other than

pedestrai crossing, he is guilty of contributory

negligence – Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that

accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving

of driver of bus .''

11.The learned counsel has also relied on the judgement of

this Court in C.M.A(MD)No.140 of 2016, dated 4.3.2016, wherein,

this Court has held as follows:

''13.The quantum of compensation or loss of contribution is not determined on the basis of monetary loss alone. It is also determined on the basis of invaluable and gratuitous services rendered

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by the mother or the wife, as the case may be. The legal representative, particularly, a married daughter, may not be totally dependent on the income of the deceased monther for her survival or living, but still, there can be a monetary assistance, during the lifetime of the deceased.

14.Even in the case of married daughters, a father or mother or brother, can still monetarily help a married daughter, depending upon the need or out of love and affection. A mother can continuously render her valuable service to her daughter, even if the daughter is married. Similarly, a married daughter would still continue to assist her mother, or father, in the case of need. Contribution by means of service or income, both can be taken into account to determine the quantum of compensation. A married daughter is a legal representative, as per law of succession and that she is entitled to make a claim and it is for the Claims Tribunal or Court, to apportion the amount between the claimants, depending upon the loss of contribution suffered by the married daughter.

15.Exclusion of a married daughter/ sister/brother from the claim petition, altogether would be opposed to the object of the Act and it would be amounting to adding words to the legislation, which the Court is not supposed to do. As held by the Apex Court, even if there is casus omissus, it is not for the Court to add words to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis legislation. The construction or interpretation of the words, ''legal representatives'' in Section 166 of the Motor Vehciles Act, in the context and nature of legislation, being beneficial should be interpreted in such a way not to take away their rights. Merely because a married daughter/sister is living with her husband, in a separate house, that by itself would not disentitle her from claiming compensation, as a legal representative,to represent, the estate of the deceased.''

Considering the above decision, the contention of learned counsel

for the transport Corporation has no legs to stand.

12. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.

7,000/-p.m..The deceased was a Chief Cook in the Mess at

Madurai and Madurai is well known for hotel industry and mess

are very famous and even applying the Minimum Wages Act, the

deceased would have earned Rs.9,000/-p.m.. In such view of the

matter, this Court fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.

9000/- p.m, to meet the ends of justice and if 10% is added towards

future prospects, the income will come to Rs.9900/- and if 50% is

deduced towards the personal income of the deceased, the monthly

income comes to Rs.4950/- and the loss of dependency comes to Rs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4950 x 12 x 11 = Rs.6,53,400/-.The other conventional heads of

funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-and

transport expenses at Rs.5000/- stands confirmed. Thus the total

compensation is arrived at Rs.6,88,400/-, which is tabulated as

follows:

                        S.No          Name of the     Awarded by Awarded by         Remarks
                                        heads         the Tribunal this Court
                      1             For loss of inome Rs.5,08,200 Rs6,53,400/- enhanced
                      2             For      funeral Rs.15,000/-     Rs.15,000/-   same
                                    expenses
                      3             For loss of estate Rs.15,000/-   Rs.15,000/-   same
                      4.            For     transport Rs.5,000/-     Rs.5,000/-    same
                                    expenses
                      9             Total             Rs.            Rs.          enhanced
                                                      5,43,200/-     6,88,400/-
                                                                     (rounded off
                                                                     to       Rs.
                                                                     6,90,000/-

with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a., from the date of claim petition

till the date of realization.

13.In the result, C.M.A(MD)No.14 of 2023 filed by the

Transport Corporation stands dismissed,whereas, C.M.A(MD)No.

180 of 2023 filed by claimants stand allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.5,43,200/- to Rs.6,88,400/- with interest at

the rate of 7.5%pa., from the date of claim petition till the date of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis realization. The respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to

deposit the enhanced award amount with accrued interest and

costs to the credit of claim petition, less the award amount, if any

already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the