Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Nagarani on 21 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1079 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1079 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11192 of 2024
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pillaithanneerpandhal,
Thirumayam Road,
Pudukottai District - 622 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Nagarani
W/o.Late.Vasudevan
2.Roshan
S/o.Late.Vasudevan
3.Minor Menilruban
S/o.Late.Vasudevan
represented through his mother/
guardian, the first respondent ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
M.C.O.P.No.122 of 2023 dated 14.12.2023 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District and Sessions Court),
Pudukottai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.1079 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanthi
For Respondents : M/s.A.Banumathy
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation challenging the finding on negligence and the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The respondents had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal,
stating that on 16.11.2022, at 07:00 p.m., while the deceased was riding
his bicycle, the bus bearing registration No.TN-55-N-900, belonging to
the appellant Corporation, came from behind, dashed against the bicycle,
and caused fatal injuries to the deceased.
3. The appellant Corporation filed a counter, stating that the
accident took place because of the deceased, who had suddenly crossed
the road, and hence, the appellant Corporation was not liable to pay any
compensation and that in any case, the compensation claimed was
excessive.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents examined P.W.1 and P.W.2
and marked Exs.P1 to P7, and the appellant Corporation examined R.W.1
and did not mark any documents.
5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
negligence of the bus driver, and hence, the appellant Corporation is liable
to pay compensation of Rs.16,84,360/-.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation would submit
that the finding of the Tribunal that the bus driver was guilty of
negligence is erroneous, inasmuch as there is no evidence to show that the
bus driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving, and that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, as the notional
income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.16,678/- per month is excessive, and
therefore prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, would
submit that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no
interference is called for.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as follows:
(a) whether the Tribunal's finding on negligence is justified;
and
(b) whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. As regards the first point, it is seen that the respondents had
examined P.W.2, the eyewitness to the occurrence, and marked Ex.P1, the
FIR, to corroborate the version of P.W.2. Ex.P1, the FIR, was registered
against the bus driver under Section 304-A of IPC. The evidence of R.W.
1, the bus driver, who is an interested witness, does not inspire
confidence, in view of the inherent improbabilities in his evidence. The
evidence suggests that the bus driver had dashed the bicycle of the
deceased from behind in a rash and negligent manner. Further, R.W.1 had
not challenged the FIR. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the bus
driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving cannot be faulted.
10. As regards the quantum of compensation, this Court is of the
view that, considering the date of the accident, the age and avocation of
the deceased, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal and the multiplier
of '11' adopted by the Tribunal for computation of compensation of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.16,14,360/- under the head 'loss of income' are just and reasonable and
therefore, no interference is called for.
11. In fact, the Tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards
'loss of consortium' to the two minor children, namely the second and
third respondents herein. Hence, a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
is awarded to the second and third respondents herein under the head 'loss
of consortium'. Though the claimants had not preferred any appeal for
enhancement of compensation, this Court has to award just and reasonable
compensation in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and is doing so in the exercise of power under Order XLI
Rule 33 of CPC.
12. Thus, the total compensation payable by the appellant
Corporation would be Rs.17,64,360/- [Rs.16,84,360/- awarded by the
Tribunal + Rs.80,000/- awarded by this Court]
13. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs.17,64,360/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
realization and costs, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
14. The first to third respondents are entitled to the compensation as
per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
15. The first respondent is permitted to withdraw her share along
with the proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
16. The second and third respondents were minors in 2022. Since
they would have now attained age of majority, they are permitted to file
application before Tribunal to record their majority and to withdraw their
shares along with proportionate interest and costs.
17. The first to third respondents/claimants are directed to pay
necessary court fee for the enhanced amount of compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai 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
21.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
