Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs Navamani on 9 August, 2024
C.M.A(MD)No.281 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.281 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2327 of 2021
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) ltd,
Through its Managing Director,
Bye pass Road,
Palanganatham
Madurai. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Navamani
2.M.Subbaiyya
3.Kamilini
4.Minor Venkatesan
(R4 is the minor represented by
his next friend guardian father
second respondent) ...Respondents1 to 4/
Petitioners
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in
MCOP No.54 of 2019, dated 16.07.2019 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Karur.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.281 of 2021
For Appellants :Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For R1 to R4 :Mr.P.Suriliraja
For R5 :Given up
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation challenging the award and decree
made in MCOP No.54 of 2019, dated 16.07.2019 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Karur.
2.The respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim petition before the
Tribunal stating that on 05.07.2015 at about 7.20 a.m., when the
daughter(aged 23 years) of the first and second respondents was
travelling as a pillion rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration
No.TN-45-AM-0488 from Karur to Coimbatore Main Road; a bus
bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-1499 owned by the appellant
Corporation had hit the two wheeler; as a result of which, the
deceased fell down from the vehicle and was crushed by the rear
wheel of the bus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The appellant filed a counter stating that the accident took
place only due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler,
who had cut across into the main road without any warning; that
the manner of the accident would suggest that the bus driver was
not responsible for the accident; and that in any case the
compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two
witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 12 documents were
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.12. On the side of the respondents, one
witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as
Ex.R.1.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the
appellant Corporation and awarded total compensation of
Rs.16,42,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
driver of the bus had deposed that the accident took place only due
to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler, in which, the
deceased travelled; that the cross-examination on the side of the
claimants has not affected the testimony of R.W.1; that the
Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability on the appellant
Corporation; and that in any case, the Tribunal ought to have fixed
the contributory negligence on the side of the rider of the two
wheeler; and that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.
10,000/- per month, is on the higher side, in the absence of any
proof of income filed by the claimants, and prayed for allowing the
appeal.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants submitted that P.W2-Eye witness to the
occurrence had clearly stated that while the deceased and the rider
of the two wheeler were traveling in the bike, the driver of the bus
overtook their two wheeler and dashed against the two wheeler,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which had caused the accident. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal has rightly believed the evidence of
P.W.2 to hold that the bus driver was responsible for the rash and
negligent driving. As regards the notional income, the learned
counsel submitted that the claimants marked Exs.P.8 to P.12, which
would show that the deceased was holding a Diploma in Nursing
and also was working in a private hospital at the relevant point of
time, and hence, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable.
8.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions
made on either side and also perused the materials available on
record.
9.The questions involved in the instant appeal are as
follows:
(i)Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the driver
of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation was liable for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rash and negligent driving?
(ii)Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable?
10.As regards the first question, it is seen from the evidence
of the eye witness(P.W.2) that while she was waiting near the
accident spot for her husband to pick her up she witnessed the
occurrence. She deposed that the driver of the bus came in a rash
and negligent manner and overtook the two wheeler and dashed
against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the deceased fell
down and died. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination
to disbelieve her version. Though the driver of the bus was
examined as R.W1, his evidence does not inspire confidence. The
version in Ex.P.1, the FIR also corroborates the version of P.W.2.
Further it is the admitted case that the two wheeler was hit by the
rear side of the bus. This Court is of the view that the version of
the bus driver that the two wheeler had suddenly crossed the road
and she saw that cannot be accepted. Therefore, the tribunal was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
right in holding that the driver of the bus belonging to the
appellant Corporation was guilty of negligence.
11.As regards the compensation, this Court is of the view
that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the
deceased was working as a Nurse in a private hospital and she had
a diploma in Nursing. In such circumstances, considering the
avocation of the deceased and the year of the accident, this Court
is of the view that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at
Rs.10,000/- is just and reasonable. The award under the other
heads is also just and reasonable and hence the same are
confirmed.
12.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.16,42,000/-, within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not
deposited earlier. The fourth respondent/claimant would have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attained majority and therefore, he is directed to file a petition
before the Tribunal to record his majority. On such a deposit, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw their shares as apportioned by
the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn if any. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
09.08.2024
NCC:Yes/No
Ns
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District Court,
Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Ns
and
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
