Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Radhakrishnan on 7 December, 2023
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
C.M.A.No.882 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.M.A.No.882 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.6471 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Office at Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam Town,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Radhakrishnan
2.Thangammal
3.Santhanabharathi ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 28.10.2021 made
in MCOP.No.100 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.882 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.Murali Vinoth
For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Transport Corporation is on appeal, challenging the award of a
sum of Rs.34,25,674/- as compensation for the death of one Vigneshwaran
in a motor accident that occurred on 16.02.2020 at about 10.00 p.m.
According to the claimants, when the said Vigneshwaran was riding a motor
cycle bearing Registration No.TN-51-P-8454 on the Mayiladuthurai to
Tiruvarur main road from East to West, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-
69-N-0288 belonging to the Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind and hit against the motor cycle causing
immediate death of the rider, Vigneshwaran.
2.Claiming that the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the claimants, who are parents and
brother of the deceased sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- The
quantum was sought to be supported by contending that the deceased was
working as a Welder in Dubai and getting a salary of 1,200 Dirams per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
month, which on conversion equalled to Rs.33,150/-. The deceased was
aged 28 years and was unmarried.
3.The Corporation resisted the claim contending that the accident did
not occurred in the manner suggested by the claimants. The Corporation
would also claim that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and
the same was the sole cause of the accident. It was also claimed that the
deceased was not wearing a helmet and also did not possess a driving
license.
4.At trial, before the Tribunal, two witnesses were examined on the
side of the claimants as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked.
The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1, the salary certificate
was marked as Ex.P6, passport was marked as Ex.P7 and the identity card
issued by the authorities in Dubai was marked as Ex.P8. The driver of the
bus and the Manager of the Transport Corporation were examined as R.W.1
and R.W.2 respectively. Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. Ex.R1 was the
postmortem report and Ex.A4 is the final report filed by the police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.On the question of the negligence, the Tribunal took into account the
First Information Report, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the
postmortem report concluded that the major portion of the negligence was
on the part of the driver of the bus. It also referred to the judgment of this
Court in CMA.No.2454 of 2013 wherein, it was pointed out that the mere
fact that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol cannot be a ground
to conclude that he was the sole cause of the accident. Therefore, the
Tribunal apportioned the negligence by 70% on the bus and 30% on the
deceased.
6.On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly salary at
Rs.33,150/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards
personal expenses, the deceased being a bachelor. It applied a multiplier of
17 to arrive at the loss of dependency at Rs.47,33,820/- It also awarded a
sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal
arrived at the total compensation at Rs.48,93,820/-. Since it had computed
the negligence on the driver of the bus at 70%, it fixed the liability of the
Corporation at Rs.34,25,674/-. Aggrieved, the Corporation is on appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.We have heard Mr.Murali Vinoth, learned counsel for the
Corporation and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the claimants.
8.Mr.Murali Vinoth, learned counsel for the Corporation would
vehemently contend that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol
and he was also not wearing a helmet. Therefore, the apportionment of
negligence by the Tribunal at 70:30 is seriously flawed. Inviting our
attention to the Ex.R1, the postmortem report and the Ex.R3, viscera Report,
to contend that the quantum of alcohol deducted is so much that we can
safely conclude that the deceased alone was responsible to the accident. He
also pointed out that the driver of the bus has been examined as R.W.1 and
he has deposed on the manner of the accident. Advantage is also sought to
be taken on the fact that the Police had filed a final report closing the First
Information Report concluding that the driver of the bus was not responsible
for the accident.
9.Contending contra, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents / claimants would submit that as pointed out by this Court in
CMA.No.2454 of 2013, merely because the deceased was found to be under
the influence of alcohol, it cannot be said that he was solely responsible for
the accident. The learned counsel would also draw our attention to the fact
that Ex.R4, the final report has not been proved in the manner known to law
as no Police Officer has been examined. The learned counsel would also
draw our attention to the conclusions of the Tribunal that the bus driver also
contributed to the accident. We have considered the rival submissions.
10.We see considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the Corporation on the aspect of negligence. The viscera report, which
has been marked as Ex.R3 shows that the following quantities of alcohol
was deducted at the postmortem of the deceased.
i)Stomach - 457 Milligrams
ii) Intestine - 118 milligrams
iii) Liver - 210 Milligrams
iv) Kidney - 220 milligrams
11.Presence of such a heavy quantity of alcohol in almost all the vital
organs would show that the deceased was definitely under the influence of
alcohol at the time of the accident. We find from the manner in which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accident has occurred and that too, at 10 pm, we cannot completely over rule
any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus also. But, at the same
time, granting compensation for the death of a person, who had violated the
law and driven a two wheeler without helmet under heavy influence of
alcohol, in our opinion, would amount to putting a premium on illegality. At
the same time, we should also bear in mind the duty that is imposed upon
persons driving heavy vehicles, that too, at night to be careful. We therefore,
find that apportionment of negligence equally between the driver of the bus
and the deceased would be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
12.No doubt, Mr.Murali Vinoth would attempt to argue on the
quantum of compensation also. Admittedly, the deceased was employed in
Dubai. His passport and his identity card establishes such employment. The
salary certificate has been given in a letter pad and supporting documents
like bank statements have not been produced. Going by a very reasonable
estimate, we find that for a person who is employed in Dubai earning a
monthly income of Rs.33,150/- during the year 2020 is very reasonable and
we do not see any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation
arrived at by the Tribunal. The compensation granted under the other heads
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is also not excessive. We therefore, confirm the quantum of compensation.
13.As already pointed out, we apportion the negligence at 50:50 to the
deceased and the driver of the bus. Therefore, the claimants would be
entitled to Rs.24,46,910/- instead of Rs.34,25,674/- as awarded by the
Tribunal.
14.In the light of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed and the compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced to
Rs.24,46,910/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The
compensation is apportioned as follows:
1. The mother of the deceased will take Rs.13,00,000/-
2. The father if the deceased will take Rs. 7,00,000/- and
3. The brother of the deceased will take Rs. 4,46,910/- with
propotionate interest.
15.It is stated that the Corporation has already deposited
Rs.19,28,536/- . The Corporation will deposit the balance amount as per the
modified award within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants will be entitled to
withdraw the entire amount. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (N.S., J.)
07.12.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
Nuetral Citation :No
To:-
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court,
Mayiladuthurai.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
KKN
and
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
