Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs R.Rengathilagam on 19 October, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.14174 of 2023
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Erode, through its General Manager, ... Appellant
.vs.
1.R.Rengathilagam
2.Minor R.Srivarshan
3.Minor R.Sivanesan
4.Mariammal
5.Gurusamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
M.V.Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree made in MCOP.No.150
of 2019 dated 03.09.2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For Respondents :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the liability and quantum of
compensation awarded in MACOP.No.150 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions
Judge), Virudhunagar.
2.The claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 3/claimants
stating that on 16.01.2017, the deceased was riding a two wheeler
bearing Reg.No.TN 84 3903 from Srivilliputhur to Madurai. The owner
of the vehicle, Perumal was the pillion rider. When they travelled at
Tatankulam road following the road rules, the bus bearing Reg.No.TN 33
N 2926, which was coming from T.Kallupatti to Srivilliputhur, came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a
result, both the rider and the pillion rider suffered injuries. The rider,
namely, the deceased Murugan @ Rajamurugan, suffered extensive head
injuries and other injuries and died due to the injuries.
3.The first respondent is the wife of the deceased. The respondents
2 and 3 are their children. The deceased was rearing milch animals and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
was selling milk. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. After the death
of the deceased, the respondents 1 to 3 find it very difficult to meet their
day-to-day requirements. Thus, the claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4.This claim was resisted by the appellant/Transport Corporation
by filing counter stating that at the time of accident, the rider of the two
wheeler had come on the wrong side of the road and hit against the bus.
The accident had happened only because of the rash and negligent riding
of the two wheeler rider and not because of the driving of the Transport
Corporation Driver. The occupation and monthly income projected by the
first respondent is denied.
5.During the enquiry before the Tribunal, P.W1 and P.W2 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.11 were marked. R.W1 was examined and
no document was marked on the side of the appellant/Transport
Corporation. On considering the oral and documentary evidence
produced, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.13,06,060/-.
Challenging the liability and quantum, this appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
6.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that it is apparent from the manner in which the accident had
happened, the deceased alone was responsible for the accident by driving
on the wrong side of the road. The pillion rider is the first person to
speak about the accident, but he was not examined as a witness. It is
doubtful whether P.W2 had seen the accident, but he had given evidence
as if he had seen the accident. Fixing Transport Corporation Driver as the
person responsible for the accident is not based on the correct evidence.
He further submitted that there is no acceptable and legal evidence
produced to show that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
Without any basis, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Thus, he challenges the award.
7.In response, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents that P.W2 had given clear evidence as to the manner in
which the accident had happened. He was travelling 20 ft., behind the
deceased and had seen the accident. His evidence is not effectively
challenged and no dent was made in his evidence with regard to the
manner in which the accident had happened. The learned Tribunal taking
into consideration all the relevant aspects including the fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
deceased was not wearing the helmet, decided that the deceased had
contributed to his death by 30%. 70% of the liability was fixed on the
Transport Corporation Driver for the accident. The compensation
awarded is just and appropriate and the liability fixed on the Transport
Corporation is also correct. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
8.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
9.It is true that the pillion rider was not examined as an eye
witness. Even if the person is a pillion rider, there are chances that he
might not have seen the accident, if he was otherwise engaged, like
taking through cell-phone etc., Here, in this case, P.W2, who travelled 20
ft., behind the two wheeler of the deceased, was examined to prove the
accident.
10.The reading of the order of the learned Tribunal shows that
P.W2's evidence with regard to the manner in which the accident had
happened has not created any doubt in the mind of the Court on his
evidence. The Driver of the Transport Corporation bus bearing Reg.No
TN 33 N 2926 was examined as R.W1. From his evidence, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
Tribunal found that R.W1 has not alleged in the FIR that the deceased
was in a drunken state or he was not wearing helmet. There is no medical
evidence as well with regard to the fact that the deceased had consumed
Alcohol.
11.It was also found that R.W1 has not stated in the complaint that
he stopped the vehicle on seeing the deceased crossing the road and
approaching the bus. But during the course of his evidence, he said so.
This was the discrepancy, which had been taken note of by the learned
Tribunal along with the evidence of P.W2 to come to the conclusion that
the Driver of the bus was a tort-feasor. However, the Tribunal going by
the medical evidence, the injuries caused to the deceased found that if the
deceased wore the helmet, his death could have been avoided. Taking
these factors into consideration, the Tribunal apportioned 30%
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Going by the reasons
given by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that fixing the
responsibility/negligence on the part of the Transport Corporation Driver
at 70% and on the deceased at 30% is just and appropriate. There is no
reason to interfere with regard to the liability aspect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
12.With reference to the quantum of monthly salary fixed at Rs.
8,000/- per month against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- per month, this
Court going by the several judgments, especially the judgment of this
Court in Andal and others vs. Avinav Kannan and others reported in
2019 (1) TN MAC 54(DB) finds that Rs.8,000/- fixed as monthly income
for the deceased considering his age and other factors is just and
appropriate. The Tribunal taking into consideration all the relevant
factors arrived at the total compensation of Rs.18,65,800/- and after
deducting contributory negligence at 30%, awarded a sum of Rs.
13,06,060/- to the respondents 1 to 5/claimants. This, in the considered
view of this Court, is just and appropriate and needs no interference.
13.In this view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
Index :Yes/No 19.10.2023
Internet :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
To
The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Srivilliputtur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
mm
C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2023
19.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
