Madras High Court
M/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Kalanjian on 6 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9308 of 2019
M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District. ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1.Kalanjian ... Respondent/1st Petitioner
2.Divya ... Respondent/2nd Petitioner
3.Ajeeth ... Respondent/3rd Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Madurai in
M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2016, dated 24.11.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the transport corporation
against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2016 challenging negligence.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was a coolie aged
about 44 years and he had alighted into the bus belonging to the transport
corporation on 22.03.2016 at about 1.30 p.m and he met with an
accident. He was thrown away from the said bus and sustained injuries
and he had passed away. The claimants sought for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-
as compensation.
3. The transport corporation has filed a counter contending that the
deceased was not keeping good mental health and he had suddenly got
down from the running bus and he sustained injuries and he had passed
away. Therefore, the transport corporation is not liable to pay any
compensation whatsoever.
4. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, arrived at a finding that there are no doors in the said bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which was plying between Ramnad and Madurai and this has resulted in
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
throwing away of the claimant outside the bus. Therefore, the
corporation alone is liable to pay the compensation. The tribunal further
fixed the monthly notional income at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd
towards personal expenses, it arrived at a monthly income of Rs.2,000/-.
Applying a multiplier of 11, the tribunal arrived at the total loss of
income at Rs.2,64,000/-. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimants 2 and 3
each for loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral
expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and a sum
of Rs.1,000/- towards loss of estate. Totally, a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was
awarded. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the
transport corporation.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
the deceased was not having good mental health and he had suddenly
jumped from the moving bus. Therefore, the driver or the conductor
cannot be held responsible for the said accident and the deceased alone
has to be blamed for the accident. He further contended that the
registration of F.I.R as against the driver of the transport corporation bus
alone is not sufficient to fix the negligence as against the said driver. He
further contended that the tribunal has not properly considered the oral
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and documentary evidence and has erroneously arrived at a finding that
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
there was negligence on the part of the driver of the transport
corporation. He further questioned the quantum of compensation as fixed
by the tribunal. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
6. The claimants could not be served for want of correct address.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on the side of
the appellant and perused the records.
8. It is a specific case of the claimants that the deceased was
thrown away from the running bus and he had sustained injuries and
passed away. However, according to the learned counsel appearing for
the transport corporation, the deceased was not keeping good mental
health and he himself had attempted to alight from a running bus and he
sustained injuries and passed away. Therefore, it is clear that the driver
or the conductor have not taken enough care to find out whether any
person was attempting to alight from the running bus or not. Though the
corporation has contended that the deceased was not keeping good
mental health, no oral or documentary evidence have been produced in
order to establish the same. Therefore, this Court does not find any
reason to disturb the findings of the tribunal with regard to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant corporation.
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
tribunal has taken the notional monthly income at Rs.3,000/- for the
deceased, who is said to be a coolie. The award amount under the other
conventional heads are also neither unreasonable nor excessive.
Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the quantum
of the award. There are no merits in the appeal.
10. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.727 of 2019
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
