Madras High Court
M/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Nagajothi on 5 January, 2023
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14087 of 2020
M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kumbakonam (Division),
New Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Nagajothi
2.Minor Narmatha
3.Minor Sinthu
4.Minor Swetha
5.Minor Kanishkar
(Minors are rep. By their mother 1st respondent Nagajothi)
6.Govindharaj
7.Govindhammal ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 made
in M.C.O.P.No.818 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gopinath
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The appeal is by the State Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the
award of a sum of Rs.20,86,000/- for the death of one Gunalan in a road
accident that occurred on 27.05.2016 at about 2.45 p.m.
2.According to the claimants, who are wife, children and parents
of the deceased Gunalan, when the said Gunalan was riding a two wheeler
along with one Nithyaraj as a pillion rider, the bus belonging to the
respondent Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0239 driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and
dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of the accident, both the rider as
well as the pillion rider suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. A case
in Crime No.152 of 2016 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against
the driver of the bus in Manalmedu Police Station. Claiming that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
deceased was working as an Electrician and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/-
per month, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
3.The Corporation resisted the claim contending that the accident
did not occurr in the manner suggested by the claimants. It was the rider of
the motor cycle, who was responsible for the accident. The income of the
claimant was stated to be exaggerated and quantum of compensation was
also categorized as excessive.
4.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent / 1st claimant was
examined as P.W.1, the claimant in the connected OP was examined as
P.W.2 and one Dinesh an eye-witness was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P7
were marked. On the side of the Corporation, the driver of the bus was
examined as R.W.1. The Tribunal upon assessment of the evidence
concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the bus. The Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the driver of the
bus had not made any complaint to the police as well as the fact that the
First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the bus. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
categorised the evidence of the driver as intersted testimony and concluded
that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus.
5.On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.12,000/-, since there was no evidence in respect of the
income as asserted by the claimants. The Tribunal adopted an increase of
40% towards future prospects, deducted 20% towards his personal expenses
and arrived a sum of Rs.20,16,000/- as total loss of dependency. It also
awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the
Tribunal arrived at a total compensation of Rs.20,86,000/-. Aggrieved, the
Corporation is on appeal.
6.We have heard Mr.D.Raghu, learned counsel for the Corporation
and Mr.T.Gopinath, learned counsel for the claimants.
7.While the learned counsel for the Corporation would contend
that the Tribunal was not right in disbelieving the evidence of R.W.1 / driver
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
of the bus, Mr.T.Gopinath, learned counsel for the claimants would submit
that the driver of the bus had not even chosen to lodge a complaint against
the rider of the two wheeler. He would also point out that the First
Information Report was lodged by a third party and therefore, it would form
basic evidence for the manner in which the accident took place.
8.We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents. If the driver of the bus claims negligence on the part of the
two wheeler, he should have lodged a complaint with the police. In the
absence of any such complaint we do not think that the Tribunal could be
faulted for disbelieving his evidence. We therefore, confirm the conclusions
of the Tribunal on the question of negligence.
9. Passing on to the quantum, we find that the compensation
determined is very reasonable, considering the age of the deceased and his
profession. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.12,000/- per month as notional
income which is just and proper. We do not see any ground to interfere with
the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
10.We are also informed that the connected appeal in
C.M.A.No.1959 of 2020, in which the challenge was to the compensation
awarded to the pillion rider in the very same accident has been dismissed by
this Court on 04.01.2021. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and
it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (S.S.K.,J.)
05.01.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
To:-
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court,
Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
KKN
C.M.A.No.1904 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14087 of 2020
05.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
