Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M.Masootha Begam on 26 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11309 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Division I),
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1.M.Masootha Begam
2.Tamimul Ansari
3.Asma Parveen
4.Abdul Kareem ... Respondents/Petitioners
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, Additional District and Sessions
Court/E.C Act Special Court, Thanjavur in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2009,
dated 10.12.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
For Respondents : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the transport corporation
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thanjavur in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2009.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding a two
wheeler on the left side of the road from east to west direction on
03.12.2008. At about 2.30 p.m, a bus belonging to the transport
corporation came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was
seriously injured and he died on the spot.
3. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a
driver in Dubai and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and he was
maintaining the family. The claimants have prayed for a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation.
4. The transport corporation has filed a counter contending that in
order to avoid dashing against a cyclist, the rider of the two wheeler had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
applied sudden brake and he lost balance and he had fallen under the
front right tyre of the bus and passed away. Therefore, the transport
corporation was no way responsible for the said accident and they need
not pay compensation. They have also questioned the quantum of
compensation as prayed for.
5. The tribunal relied upon P.W.2 who was an eye witness and
came to a conclusion that the transport corporation has not established
the fact that in order to avoid dashing against a cyclist, the deceased had
applied sudden brake. The tribunal further found that the driver of the
transport corporation bus had driven the vehicle on the right side of the
road and has caused the accident and ultimately, found that the accident
had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver of the transport corporation.
6. The tribunal further found that the deceased was having an
international driving license and he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per
month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying
a multiplier of 13, the tribunal has arrived at a compensation of
Rs.12,48,000/- under the head of loss of income. The tribunal has further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st
claimant, a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the claimants 2 and 3 under the head of
loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the 4th claimant
towards the loss of filial consortium and an another sum of Rs.10,000/-
has been awarded. A sum of Rs.7,000/- was awarded for funeral
expenses and transport charges. Totally, a sum of Rs.13,25,000/- was
awarded. This award is under challenge in the present appeal primarily
on the ground of negligence.
7. According to the appellant/transport corporation, the deceased
had applied sudden brake in order to avoid dashing against a cyclist and
therefore, he lost balance and fallen under the front right tyre of the bus
along with the two wheeler. Therefore, they are not responsible for the
said accident. The driver of the bus has been examined. One Uthuman
Ali who is an eye witness has been examined as P.W.2. According to the
said P.W.2, the bus had dashed against the two wheeler and that has
resulted in the accident. The transport corporation has not taken any
steps to mark the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report to establish the
damages to both the vehicles in order to establish the manner of accident.
Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the findings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
of the tribunal that the accident has taken place only due to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation.
Considering the fact that the deceased was holding an international
driving license and he was working as a driver in Dubai, the quantum of
compensation is neither unreasonable nor exorbitant. There are no merits
in the appeal.
8. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Court/
E.C Act Special Court,
Thanjavur.
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.1351 of 2016
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2016
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
