Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Tamilselvi on 16 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1002 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1002 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.10430 of 2024
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Tamilselvi
W/o.Late.Muthukumar
2.Minor.Mohanapriya
D/o.Late.Muthukumar
3.Minor.Poovarasan
S/o.Late.Muthukumar
4.Minor.Boopathiraja
S/o.Late.Muthukumar
5.Shanmugam
W/o.Velusamy
6.Velusamy
S/o.Ramaiah ... Respondents
[Minor R2 to R4 are represented through their
mother and natural guardian, R1]
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1002 of 2024
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
16.02.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court),
Srivilliputtur.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Sivaji
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation challenging the Tribunal's findings on negligence and the
quantum of compensation.
2. The respondents had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal,
stating that on 18.05.2015, at about 04:45 p.m., while the deceased was
trying to board a bus bearing registration No.TN-67-N-0391 belonging to
the appellant Corporation, the bus driver negligently started moving the
bus, as a result of which the deceased fell off the bus, was run over by it,
and sustained fatal injuries.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The appellant Corporation filed a counter, stating that since the
deceased had stolen a mobile phone from a nearby hotel, the public
chased him, and while attempting to escape, he ran very fast, hit a police
barricade, and sustained grievous injuries, and that since the bus was not
involved in the accident, the appellant is not liable to pay any
compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2
and marked Exs.P1 to P24, and the appellant Corporation examined R.W.
1, the conductor of the bus, and did not mark any documents.
5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the bus driver was responsible for the
accident and directed the appellant Corporation to pay the compensation
of Rs.14,34,000/-.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that
the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant would show that the
deceased tried to board the moving bus and, therefore, the bus driver
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be attributed with negligence, and that the compensation, in any
case, is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, per contra,
submitted that the claimants had established that the deceased had
boarded the bus and thereafter slipped and fell down from the bus because
the bus moved suddenly, and therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding
that the bus driver was responsible for the accident, and prayed for
dismissal of this appeal. He further submitted that, though the claimants
have not preferred any appeal for enhancement of compensation, the
notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre, and this Court may
enhance the compensation as the Tribunal has not awarded just and
reasonable compensation.
8. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are: (a) whether
the Tribunal's finding on negligence and liability is justified; and (b)
whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. As regards the first point, it is seen that though the claimants had
not examined any witnesses to prove the manner of the accident, the FIR
(Ex.P1) lodged by R.W.1, the conductor of the bus, would show that the
deceased was run over by the bus while he was boarding the bus.
However, R.W.1, in his deposition, took a contrary stand, stating that the
deceased was being chased by the general public as he had stolen a mobile
phone from a nearby hotel, had dashed against a police barricade, and
sustained injuries, and thereby denying the involvement of the bus in the
accident. The evidence of R.W.1, which is contrary to his own complaint
registered as FIR (Ex.P1), therefore, cannot be believed. Thus, in the
absence of any acceptable evidence produced on the side of the appellant
Corporation, the averments in the claim petition and the documents
produced on the side of the claimants have been rightly accepted by the
Tribunal to hold that the claimants have established the manner of the
accident. Thus, the Tribunal's finding that the bus driver was guilty of rash
and negligent driving cannot be faulted. The point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
10. As regards the second point, this Court is of the view that
though the respondents have not preferred any appeal for enhancement of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation, this Court has to award just and reasonable compensation.
It is seen that the claimants had established by the evidence of P.W.1, the
wife of the deceased, that the deceased was working as a painter. The
claimants had also examined P.W.2, the Secretary of the Rajapalayam
Branch of the Virudhunagar District Construction Workers Association,
who deposed that the deceased was working as a painter and was earning
a sum of Rs. 600/- per day as wages. However, there is no evidence to
prove that the deceased was a member of the said Association, and there is
no basis for P.W.2 to certify the income of the deceased. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the evidence of P.W.2, or the documents marked
through him, namely Exs.P22 and P23, cannot be relied upon for fixing
the income of the deceased.
11. At the same time, this Court is of the view that the notional
income of Rs.6,800/- per month fixed by the Tribunal can be enhanced to
Rs.8,000/- per month, considering the avocation and the age of the
deceased and the year of the accident. Since the deceased was 36 years
old at the time of the accident, 40% of the income has to be added towards
future prospects, and the multiplier applicable is 15. Since the deceased
was survived by his wife, three minor children, and his parents, 1/4th has
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the compensation under
the head 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.15,12,000/- [Rs.8,000 + 40/100
x 12 x 15 x 3/4].
12. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of
love and affection' to each of the six claimants. However, they are entitled
to Rs.40,000/- each, as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The award under the other heads is just and reasonable and is
therefore confirmed. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl. Heads Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted
1 Loss of Dependency Rs.12,24,000/- Rs.15,12,000/- Enhanced
2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
4 Loss of Love and
Affection to the claimants Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 2,40,000/- Enhanced
Total Rs.14,34,000/- Rs.17,82,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.3,48,000/-
13. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs.17,82,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization and costs,
after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of
twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
14. The respondents are entitled to the compensation, as per the
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
15. The first, fifth, and sixth respondents are permitted to withdraw
their shares along with the proportionate interest and costs, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the
Tribunal.
16. The second respondent was a minor at the time of filing of the
claim petition in 2016. It is noticed that she would have now attained
majority. Therefore, the second claimant is permitted to file suitable
application before the Tribunal to record her majority and to withdraw her
share along with proportionate interest and costs.
17. Since the third and fourth respondents are still minors, their
shares are directed to be deposited in an interest-bearing fixed deposit
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[F.D.] in any nationalized bank until they attain majority. The first
respondent, who is their natural guardian, is permitted to withdraw the
accrued interest once every six months.
18. The respondents are directed to pay the necessary court fee for
the enhanced amount of compensation.
19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
Transport Corporation is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
and
16.10.2024
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
