The Managing Director vs Dhivya
2023 Latest Caselaw 1973 Mad

                                                                                 C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 07.03.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                             C.M.A.(MD)No.4 of 2023
                                                      and
                                             C.M.P.(MD) No.28 of 2023

                The Managing Director,
                Kumbakonam Division,
                Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                Managiri,
                Karaikudi Taluk,
                Sivagangai District.                                    ...Appellant/ Respondent


                                                      Vs.
                1.Dhivya
                2.Minor Yojana
                3.Seemaichamy
                4.Annapoorani
                                                                ...Respondents/Petitioners


                PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P.No.
                112 of 2018 on the file of the MACT (District and Sessions Court),
                Ramanathapuram dated 10.12.2019.




                1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                          C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023




                                           For Appellant     : Mr. P.M.Vishunvarthanan
                                           For R3 & R4       : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran


                                                           JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the award

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District and Sessions Court,

Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.112 of 2018 dated 10.12.2019.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per

their rank before the Trial Court.

3.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal, are as follows:-

(ii) the deceased Soundarapandian is the husband of the first petitioner

and father of the second petitioner and son of the third and fourth petitioners.

While he was riding his motor cycle on 11.10.2016 at 04.00 p.m., the bus

belonging to the respondent corporation bearing Registration No.TN 63 N 1706

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and as a result,

the deceased succumbed to injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was

only aged about 34 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. He

was running an institution regarding Marine Engineering.

4.The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that there was no

negligent on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant

corporation and the deceased was only rash and negligent in driving his vehicle.

On the other hand, the deceased while overtaking a car proceeding in front of him,

suddenly took a turn to the left side and fell down, at that time, the car that was

coming behind the deceased ran over him and thereby, the deceased succumbed to

injuries.

5.To substantiate the case, before the Tribunal on the side of the

claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked and

on the side of the respondent R.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined and no

documentary evidence was marked.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

6.On careful appreciation of evidence and materials, the Tribunal has

concluded that the accident had taken place in the left side of the highway and the

evidence of P.W.1 also clearly speaks about the rash and negligent driving on the

part of the driver of the bus. Considering the factual aspects and the evidence

adduced, the Tribunal has fixed the following compensation with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum:

                             S.                    Heads                          Amount
                             No
                              1. Loss of income                          Rs.24,00,000/-
                              2. Funeral expenses                        Rs.   15,000/-
                              3. Loss of belongings                      Rs.   15,000/-
                              4. Loss of Consortium to the first Rs.           40,000/-
                                 petitioner
                              4. Loss of guardianship                    Rs.    40,000/-
                              5. Loss of heir to the third and fourth Rs.       80,000/-
                                 respondents
                              6. Medical expenses                        Rs.   48,000/-
                                                                    Total Rs.26,38,000/-

Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by

the Transport Corporation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

7.The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of

the driver of the bus and the deceased himself made an attempt to overtake a car

proceeding in front of his vehicle, while he was riding his motorcycle, without any

caution. Thereafter, on seeing the opposite vehicle, viz., the bus of the appellant

corporation, the deceased took a sudden turn to his left side. Therefore, he fell

down as he left the control over his vehicle and the unknown car that was coming

behind him ran over the deceased. Accordingly, the entire negligence is only on

the part of the deceased. Further, he contended that there is an ample evidence and

record to show that the driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent

corporation was not negligent.

8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

the entire materials placed on record.

9.Admittedly, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that P.W.2 was coming

behind the deceased in another motor cycle. At that time, the bus driven in a rash

and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle. Thereafter, the deceased

was taken to various hospitals.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

10.A case was also registered on the next day of the accident. The

tribunal considering all the facts, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 brother of the

deceased, has concluded that the delay in filing FIR is normal in such

circumstances and held that the same cannot be used against the deceased. The

tribunal also concluded that the place of accident and the death of the petitioner is

not disputed by the corporation.

11.Except R.W.1, no other evidence was adduced on the side of the

appellant to disprove the contention of the claimants before the tribunal.

Therefore, the appellant shall not have a stand that the driver of the bus is not

responsible in causing such accident being an interested party. Unless his

evidence is corroborated with any other evidence, the same cannot be given much

importance. Perusal of the evidence and the reasonings given by the tribunal, this

Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that there was no negligent on the part of the driver of the transport corporation

cannot be countenanced.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

12.In respect of other aspects, namely the age of the deceased, the same

is not disputed by the appellant herein. Even the postmortem report also clearly

substantiate the age of the deceased. The tribunal has considered the document

under Ex.B14 to show that the deceased was running a provisional store in the

name of Dhivya Store. Further, the deceased is graduate in Engineering and he

had other extra curricular activities. To substantiate the same, Ex.P9 to Ex.P11

were filed.

13.The Tribunal has also considered the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Compnay Ltd., vs. Manimekalai

and others reported in 2016 (2) TN MAC 109 (DB) and R.Mallika vs. A.Babu

reported in 2015 (2) TN MAC (171) to fix the notional income of the deceased at

Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and

others in CDJ 2017 SCC 1220, the Tribunal has taken note of the future prospects

at the rate of 40% considering the age of the deceased and fixed the total income

of the deceased at Rs.16,800/- per month.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

14. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted and the appeal preferred

by the transport corporation has to be necessarily failed. Accordingly, this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

15.At this juncture, it is represented that the wife of the deceased,

namely, the first claimant/ first respondent died leaving behind her minor child

second respondent herein. Since the Tribunal has already apportioned the

compensation to the third and fourth respondents at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- each,

the amount apportioned to the first claimant, ie.,Rs.11,38,000/- shall go to the

minor child of the first claimant. In all other aspects, the award of the tribunal is

confirmed.

16.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount

as awarded by the Tribunal with accrued interest and costs to the credit of

M.C.O.P.No.112 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /

District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, less the amount, if any already

deposited. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. (MD)No.4 of 2023

award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any already

withdrawn, by making necessary application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

shall deposit the share of the minor claimant in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the

Nationalized Banks, till he attains majority. The guardian of the minor is

permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in three months directly

from the bank. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

07.03.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.

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.4 of 2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ta

C.M.A.(MD)No.4 of 2023

07.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis