Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Kanaga on 7 December, 2023
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
C.M.A(MD)No.1248 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1248 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.16542 of 2023
The Managing Director,
M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Division – II), Ltd.,
Periyamilaguparai,
Collector Office Road,
Tiruchirapalli -1. ... Appellant
.vs.
1.Kanaga
2.Divakar
3.Divya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
M.V.Act, 1988, to set aside the order dated 29.06.2022 made in
MCOP.No.824 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/the learned Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant :Mr.K.Ramaiah
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1248 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the liability to pay the
compensation and the quantum of compensation.
2.The respondents/claimants filed the claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Dhanaraj in a road
accident. The claimants are his wife and children. On the ill fated day, ie.,
on 06.04.2015, at about 10.45 hours., the deceased was riding his two
wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 48 Q 4892 in Kolakkanatham to Trichy
Road on the extreme left side of the road. When he came near Lakshmi
land, Varakuppai, a bus bearing Reg.No.TN 45 N 2760 was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner from west-east direction and hit
against the deceased. As a result, the deceased suffered injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was an agriculturist and was
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the sole bread winner of
the family and due to his sudden demise, the claimants/respondents find
it very difficult to make both the ends meet. In the said circumstances,
the claim petition was filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.In the counter, it is stated by the respondents that on 06.04.2015,
the bus bearing Reg.No.TN 45 N 2760 on its regular trip from Ariyalur to
Kolakanatham was driven by its driver near Varakuppai village from
west-east direction. At the place of the accident, the road was bending
towards south. The respondent corporation bus driver was about to take
right turn at bend, the rider of the two wheeler came from the opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner on the right side of the road and
hit against the bus. As a result, the accident had happened. The
respondent corporation driver was not responsible for the accident. The
quantum of compensation claimed is also excessive.
4.During the enquiry before the trial Court, P.W1 and P.W2 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. R.W1 and R.W2 were
examined and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked.
5.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal found that the respondent corporation driver was 80%
responsible for the accident and the deceased was 20% responsible for
the accident. Adopting the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month, the
learned Tribunal had arrived at compensation of Rs.10,10,600/-. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deducting 20% of this amount towards contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased, the respondents/claimants were awarded a sum of
Rs.8,08,480/-. Challenging this award, this appeal is filed.
6.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the deceased was mainly responsible for the accident and therefore, the
apportionment at 80% on the respondent corporation driver and 20% on
the deceased is not correct. If at all any apportionment is to be made, the
deceased must be held to have contributed to the accident at least 50%.
He further submitted that the notional income of the deceased fixed at
Rs.9,000/- per month is excessive.
7.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
8.As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the case of
the appellant is that the transportation corporation driver was proceeding
the bus from west-east direction and at the place of the accident, the road
takes a turn towards south. The deceased, who was coming from south,
should have come on the left side of the road, but he came on the right
side of the road and had mainly contributed to the accident. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the evidence produced, especially the rough sketch, it is seen that
the place of accident is a open place. The driver of the bus had clear
visibility of the road. He could have avoided the accident by driving the
bus within the speed limit. If he had driven the bus within the speed
limit, though the accident had happened, that would not have resulted in
the death of the deceased. Thus, there is every possibility that the
transport corporation driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent
manner and mainly contributed to the accident. Taking into consideration
the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the learned
Tribunal had apportioned the responsibility for the accident at 20% on
the deceased. This apportionment, in the considered view of this Court, is
just and appropriate and needs no interference.
9.With regard to quantum of the compensation, the deceased was
aged 53 years. Even by doing some physical work, he could have easily
earned not less than Rs.9,000/- per month. Thus, fixing a sum of Rs.
9,000/- per month as notional income and calculating the compensation
are just and appropriate. The respondents/claimants were awarded a just
and reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not require any
interference from this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.In this view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
Index :Yes/No 07.12.2023
Internet :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
mm
To
The Special District Judge,
Tiruchirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
mm
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
