Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Latha on 6 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1062 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.10883 of 2017 and 3602 of 2023
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
New Junction Road,
Kumbakonam Town & Munsif .....Appellant/Respondent
-vs-
1. Latha .... Respondent No.1/Petitioner No.1
2. Selvi .... Respondent No.2 / Petitioner No.2
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.34
of 2009, dated 15.11.2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Court/EC Act Special Court, Thanjavur.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : Mr.N.Tamil Mani– for R2
: R1 - died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport
Corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court/EC Act Special Court,
Thanjavur in M.C.O.P.No.34 of 2009 primarily on the ground of non-
involvement of the vehicle.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was an agriculturist and he
was waiting for the bus at Sathanur bus stop at about 07.15 a.m on
02.02.2008. At that time, the respondent Corporation bus came from
Thirukkattupalli and the driver has stopped the bus in the bus stop. However,
when the deceased was getting into the bus through the front way, the driver
of the bus had suddenly taken the bus without getting any signal from the
Conductor. Due to the rash and negligent manner of the bus driver, the
deceased had fallen down and he was run over by the rear wheel of the bus
and passed away.
3. According to the claimants, the deceased was an agriculturist and he
was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per month and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
they have claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards
compensation.
4. The Transport Corporation has filed a counter contending that the
bus was originally stopped in the bus stop and after it had moved, two
persons came running from behind the bus who were in an inebriated mood
and alighted into the bus through the rear entry. At that point of time, they
were already injured through some other accident. Hence, they contended that
they are not responsible to pay any compensation.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of P.W.2 who was
one of the co-passengers in the bus, arrived at a finding that due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus, the
accident has taken place.
6. The Tribunal further found that the age of the deceased was 38 years
and he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per
month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal
arrived at a sum of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only) per
annum and applying the multiplier of “15” had arrived at a compensation of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
sum of Rs.4,80,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) under
the head of loss of income. A sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) was awarded towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) was awarded towards loss of love and affection, a sum of
Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) was awarded towards funeral
expenses and transport expenses. The total sum of Rs.5,17,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only) was awarded. This award is under challenge
in the present appeal.
7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
Transport Corporation, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0067 was
not at all involved in the said accident. Therefore, the Transport Corporation
is not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever. In fact, the deceased person
had got himself injured and succumbed to the said injuries sustained in some
other accident, in which the Transport Corporation bus was not at all
involved. He further questioned the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants had
contended that the manner of accident has been established by the claimants
examining the co-passenger viz., P.W.2 and the FIR, which was marked as
Ex.P.1. The Transport Corporation has not even chosen to examine their own
driver who was on the duty at the time of the accident. Hence, he prayed for
confirming the involvement of the vehicle and also the quantum of the award
passed by the Tribunal.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side.
10. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant is that the concerned bus was not at all involved in the said
accident. The deceased has sustained injuries and succumbed to the said
injury because of some other accident, in which, the Transport Corporation
was not at all involved. The claimants have examined P.W.2, who is the one
of the co-passengers of the bus and P.W.2 had specifically pointed out that
when the deceased was attempting to enter into the bus, the driver has started
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without getting any signal from the
Conductor. The FIR was registered as against the bus driver under Ex.P.1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
which also indicates the same. In case, if the accident has not happened in the
manner projected by the claimants, the Transport Corporation should have
examined their own driver. However, for the reasons best known to them, the
Corporation has not chosen to examine their own driver to establish the
manner of accident.
11. In such a view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner of the
accident and the liability of the Transport Corporation to pay the
compensation.
12. Considering the fact that the accident has taken place in the year
2008 and the Tribunal has chosen to fix the notional income at Rs.4,000/-
(Rupees Four Thousand only), this Court does not find any reason to find that
the said amount is either unreasonable or excessive. The award of the
Tribunal under the conventional heads are also neither unreasonable nor
excessive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
13. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no merits in the appeal.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Court/EC Act Special Court,
Thanjavur.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1062 of 2017
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.M.A.(MD)No.1062 of 2017
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
