Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Natarajan on 20 January, 2023
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.12957 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
3/137, Salamedu,
Vazhuthareddy Post, Villupuram – 605 401. ...Appellant
Vs.
R.Natarajan ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2021 in
M.C.O.P.No.5811 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Transport Corporation is on appeal, challenging the award of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai made in M.C.O.P.No.5811 of
2018 granting a sum of Rs.22,77,000/- as compensation for the death of one
Saravanan, son of the respondent, in a motor accident that occurred on
08.06.2018 at about 8.40 p.m.
2.According to the claimant, while the said Saravanan was
travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-
BS-2190 from East to West in front of Amma Unavagam on Poonamallee
High Road, Nerkundram, Chennai, the bus belonging to the appellant
Corporation, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner came from
behind and hit against the motor cycle resulting in the death of the said
Saravanan at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital on 09.06.2018.
Claiming that the deceased Saravanan was a student and had a bright future
prospects, the claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
3.The claim was resisted by the appellant Corporation contending
that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimant. It
was contended that the bus was not involved in the accident. According to
the Corporation, a speeding car hit the two wheeler as a result of which, the
deceased Saravanan got injured. The bus driver helped the injured persons
as a humanitarian measure and the same has been taken advantage of by the
claimants.
4.Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and
Exs.P1 to P9 were produced. The bus driver was examined as R.W.1. No
documents were produced by the appellant Corporation. One John Peter, an
eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. The Tribunal, upon consideration of
the First Information Report and the charge sheet concluded that the driver
of the bus is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal also faulted the
driver of the bus for not having lodged any complaint against the driver of
the Car, which according to him was the cause for the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
5.On quantum, the Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income at
Rs.15,000/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards
personal expenses and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.21,42,000/-.
Adding Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses,
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of
Rs.22,77,000/-.
6.We have heard Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel for the respondent.
7.Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in deciding the question
of negligence based on certain stray answers given in the cross-examination
as driver. He would also point out that the quantum of compensation is on
the higher side and the Tribunal ought to have taken only a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as notional income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
8.Contending contra, Mr.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal had not relied
upon the stray answers and the driver alone. It had also adverted to the
evidence of P.W.2, eye-witness as well as the fact that the First Information
Report and the charge sheet were laid against the driver of the bus.
Drawing our attention to the specific portions of the evidence of R.W.1, the
driver of the bus, Mr.Vardha Kamaraj would submit that he had infact,
admitted the accident.
9.On the quantum, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant
would submit that even a last grade servant was earning more than
Rs.15,000/- at the relevant point of time and the deceased was a bright
student and he had better prospects of earning more. According to him, the
sum of Rs.15,000/- fixed as notional income is justified, considering the
wageries in life and the chances of unemployment. We have considered the
rival submissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
10.No doubt, the driver of the bus had stepped into the witness
box to depose about the accident but, the First Information Report has been
lodged against him and a charge sheet had also been laid against him. He
has admitted the First Information Report and he has infact, said that the
statements made therein are incorrect. This vital admission cannot be
ignored as a stray answer. If the claim of the RW-1 that a car was
responsible for the accident is true, he, as a responsible Government servant
should have lodged a complaint with the police regarding the accident, soon
after the accident. Having not done so, he cannot be heard to contend that
some other vehicle was responsible for the accident. We are therefore,
unable to fault the Tribunal for finding that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the bus.
11.On the quantum also, we do not see any reason to reduce the
same. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.15,000/- as notional monthly income.
In 2018, the salary drawn by a last grade Government servant was around
Rs.20,000/- therefore, the adoption of Rs.15,000/- as notional income for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
student cannot be said to be on the higher side. The compensation awarded
under the other heads is also reasonable and we do not see any reason to
interfere with the same. This Civil Miscellneous Appeal therefore, fails and
it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (S.S.K.,J.)
20.01.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
To:-
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV-Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
KKN
C.M.A.No.1793 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.12957 of 2022
20.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
