Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Sooralalakshmi on 14 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.12056 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Coimbatore,
Erode Region. ... Appellant
Vs.
Rathina Kumar (Died)
1.Sooralalakshmi
2.Arunkumar
3.Arunitha
4.I.Ravi
5.The Manager,
IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited,
12, Freetham Plaza 1st Floor,
Ponmeni, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2012, dated 15.11.2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Virudhunagar
District at Srivilliputhur.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Venkatesh
For R5 : Mr.V.Sakthivel
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Virudhunagar District at
Srivilliputhur in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2012, dated 15.11.2018, the Transport
Corporation has filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that there
is no nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased.
However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,15,300/- as
compensation.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 11.05.2007, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was travelling in a
TATA Sumo car bearing Registration No.TN 65 A 4550 along with others
in Madurai – Tuticorin Highway, to attend the Pongal festival. At that
time, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 33 N 1894 came
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TATA Sumo car.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and spinal cord was
fractured and both the legs were completely damaged and nervous
system also affected. Thereafter, he was treated in the Government
Hospital and he is not able to move and totally bedridden and he died on
20.07.2017. It is the case of the first respondent/Transport Corporation
before the Tribunal that while the bus was overtaking the Torus lorry
proceeding in front of the bus, the driver of the lorry show the signal not
to overtake the lorry. Therefore, the driver of the bus took the bus on the
left side. At that time, the TATA sumo car came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the bus.
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 was
examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked and R.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.R1 was marked.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the
eyewitnesses, found that only the driver of the bus was negligent in
driving the bus and the deceased died due to the injuries. Though he died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
in the year 2017 after ten years from the date of accident, the deceased
was continuously in treatment and awarded a sum of Rs.11,15,300/-.
Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased.
According to him, the accident took place on 11.05.2007, whereas the
deceased died on 20.07.2017, after 10 years from the date of accident and
there is no evidence to show that the deceased continuously taken
treatment.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5
would submit that the deceased suffered severe fracture on the spinal
cord and both the legs were immobilised and totally bedridden and he
was continuously taken care of by the wife and children. This fact has
also been established by the Commissioner report. Therefore, merely
because no specific document has been filed to show that the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
died due to the complication of injuries it cannot be concluded that the
deceased was not died due to the accident.
7. In the light of the above submissions, now the points for
consideration in this appeal are (i) whether the claimants have proved the
nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased? (ii) Whether
the Tribunal is right in awarding the compensation for the death case?
8. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that only the
driver of the bus was negligent in driving the bus and caused the accident
and P.W.2/eyewitness in his evidence clearly stated that only the driver of
the offending vehicle drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and
caused the accident and the F.I.R. also filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle.
9. Considering the nature of the documents and the evidence of
P.W.2, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the
driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
require any interference.
10. With regard to the other contention that there is no nexus
between the accident and the death of the deceased, on a perusal of the
evidence and the documents produced before the Tribunal ie., Exs.P9,
P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16 and P17 make it clear that the
deceased was suffered serious injuries and the spinal cord was
completely damaged and Ex.P17 / disability certificate issued by the
Government to the effect that he suffered 80% of functional disability.
Though the petitioners not filed any document to show that he was taken
continuous treatment, the fact remains that though the injured died on
20.05.2017, till his death he was continuously bedridden. This fact can
be seen from the Commissioner report filed before the Tribunal. In fact,
the Commissioner was appointed to examine the injured in the year 2015.
The Commissioner has examined the injured and filed a report before the
Tribunal to the effect that he was totally immobilised and he was not in a
position to speak and even all his basic necessities looked after by his
wife. The report of the Commissioner is not challenged before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
The deceased was an ordinary coollie and in fact, earlier he was treated
in the Government hospital for certain period and thereafter, he was
taken care of by his wife and the Government has also issued Ex.P17 /
disability certificate to give some benefits to him. It is also indicate that
80% complete disability it cannot be stated that there is no nexus
between the accident and the death of the deceased. Hence, the
contention of the appellant in this regard cannot be countenanced. This
Court is of the view that the injured was continuously in treatment till his
death from the year 2017. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to
compensation.
11. As far as the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed
a sum of Rs.6,500/- as notional income of the deceased and he was aged
about 38 years and applied the multiplier '15' and the quantum of
compensation also not challenged by the petitioners. Though the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering, this Court is
of the view that the said amount shall be adjusted towards consortium
and loss of love and affection and the amount awarded by the Tribunal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
other aspects is confirmed.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and
the appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire
award amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.06.2023
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
akv
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Virudhunagar District,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2022
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
N.SATHISHKUMAR, J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD)No.1185 of 2022
14.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
