Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Ramar on 4 January, 2024
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
C.M.A(MD)No.875 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
C.M.A(MD)No.875 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.8230 of 2021
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Bye Pass Road, Dindigul. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Ramar
2.Eswari ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree, dated
27.06.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.333 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondents : Mr.V.Malaiyendran
JUDGEMENT
The State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal against
the award passed in M.C.O.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The contention of the appellant is
that the deceased was a foot board traveller, at a speed breaker he fell
down and died. The main issue that was raised by the Transport
Corporation is that the Tribunal had fixed 100% negligence on the part
of the appellant but ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the
deceased as well. And the next contention is that for loss of love and
affection, the Tribunal has fixed as Rs.50,000/-, also granted Rs.40,000/-
for loss of consortium, but the Tribunal ought to grant either for loss of
love and affection or for loss of consortium and not both.
3. As far as the contributory negligence is concerned, the plea of
the appellant is that the deceased had travelled on the foot board and
hence the negligence ought to be fixed on the deceased as well. Atleast,
the Tribunal ought to have taken 30% contributory negligence on the
deceased. However, this Court is not able to accept the contention for a
sole reason that the Transport Corporation ought to have refused to take
the passenger (deceased) if he is foot board traveller. And also ought to
have directed the passenger to alight from the bus and they should not
allow any foot board traveller at all. Since the Transport Corporation has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
failed in their duty, the entire negligence is fixed on the Transport
Corporation.
4. As far as the compensation for love and affection the Tribunal
had granted Rs.50,000/- and for loss of Consortium the Tribunal had
granted Rs.40,000/- and the Tribunal cannot grant compensation on both
heads. It is seen that the mother and the father of the deceased are the
claimants and they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under any one of the
head and in such circumstances, they are entitled to Rs.80,000/- for both
under any one of the head. It is seen the Tribunal had granted Rs.50,000/-
under Love and Affection and Rs.40,000/- under Loss of Consortium and
the total is only 90,000/-, which is just compensation under one head.
The head may differ, but the amount is just compensation. It can be taken
either under loss of love and affection as Rs.90,000/- or under loss of
consortium as Rs.90,000/-. Therefore, there is no difference in the award
amount if the total amount is taken (even though it is under different
heads). Therefore, both the grounds are not legally sustainable grounds.
5.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
Order made in
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
