Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Pappathi on 8 March, 2023
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.56 of 2023
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Periyamilaguparai,
Trichy – 1. ... Appellant / Respondent
Vs.
1.Pappathi
2.P.Mariyappan ... Respondents / Petitioners
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 04.12.2020 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1139 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special District Court), Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For Respondents : No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special District Court), Tiruchirapalli, in M.C.O.P.No.1139 of 2014, dated
04.12.2020, the appellant – Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
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:-
The deceased Murugesan is the only son of the petitioners, he was
unmarried and he was Driver by profession. While he was driving the Mini Auto,
bearing Registration No.TN-57-U-2452 at 5.15 p.m., towards Trichy, a bus bearing
Registration No.TN-45-N-1210, belonging to the respondent Transport
Corporation, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came
in the opposite direction and dashed against the Mini Auto. As a result, the
deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
4. The respondent – Transport Corporation took a stand before the
Tribunal that the bus was driven by its driver in a cautious manner. However, only
the Auto Driver driven the Auto in a rash and negligent manner and invited the
accident.
5. To substantiate the case before the Tribunal, on the side of the
petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked and
on the side of the respondent – Transport Corporation, R.W.1 was examined and
Ex.R1 was marked.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence and the arguments advanced on either side and also appreciating the
evidence on record, has fixed the following compensation with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum:
S. Heads Amount
No
1. Loss of dependency Rs.10,71,000/-
2. Filial Consortium Rs. 70,000/-
3. Transport Expenses Rs. 7,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.11,68,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by
the respondent – Transport Corporation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Transport
Corporation submitted that there was negligence on the part of the deceased.
According to him, FIR has been filed as against the deceased and therefore, it is
clear that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. That apart, though
there was no evidence to show that the deceased was a driver by profession, the
tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per
month, which is not according to law. He further submitted that the amount
awarded under the various heads are also excessive and the same may be reduced.
8. Though notice has been served on the claimants, there is no
representation on behalf of them.
9. I have perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
10. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that FIR has been filed at first
instance as against the deceased. The Tribunal did not rely upon the FIR, since it
has been filed by the Conductor of the bus. It is to be noted that the deceased was
driving the Mini Auto alone and he succumbed to injuries on the spot. Therefore,
filing of the FIR implicating the deceased by the Conductor of the bus is the
normal conduct of the human being in order to avoid liability. Therefore, merely
because the filing of the FIR by the driver of the offending vehicle or the
conductor cannot be a determinative factor to assess the negligence. The Tribunal,
by considering the evidence of the eyewitness, has come to the definite conclusion
that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus
driver. The accident had occurred in the Highways. The bus being a heavy
vehicle and the feasibility of the road is also very clear and such being a position,
certainly, the Court can hold that the accident occurred due to the negligent
driving of the driver of the bus. The evidence of the eyewitness has clearly
supported the case of the petitioners. Though in the counter affidavit the
respondent - Transport Corporation stated that there was no negligence on their
part, to prove the same, the driver of the offending vehicle or any of the passenger
was not examined. Therefore, the finding the Tribunal, holding that the driver of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
the offending vehicle is responsible for causing accident, is supported by reasons
and the same does not require for any interference. With regard to the notional
income is concerned, the Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was a
driver by profession and he was aged about 29 years, has correctly fixed the
notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month. Further, The Tribunal has correctly
added 40% future prospects, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in
2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC). Further, the Tribunal has also deducted ½ towards
personal expenses of the deceased, as per the judgment of the Sarla Verma and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN
MAC (1) SC, which is also reasonable.
11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in
the orders of the Tribunal and hence, this Appeal is dismissed and the award dated
04.12.2020, in M.C.O.P.No.1139 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Tiruchirapalli, is hereby confirmed.
12. The respondent / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation of Rs.11,68,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.56 of 2023
date of petition till the date of deposit and costs within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special District Court), Tiruchirapalli.
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.56 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
C.M.A.(MD)No.56 of 2023
08.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
