Madras High Court
Managing Director vs Robert Kennadi on 5 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.388 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.388 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Karaikudi. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Robert Kennadi,
2.Quine meri,
3.Lenin,
4.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pudukottai (Given up) ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.318 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court,
Pudukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash
For Respondents
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.388 of 2013
for R1 & R2 : No appearance
for R4f : Given up
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on
negligence and the quantum of compensation.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 had filed a claim petition stating that on
16.11.2001, while the deceased was riding his cycle, a bus belonging to
the appellant/Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the cycle from behind, as a result of which, the
deceased sustained injuries and thereafter, died at the hospital on
18.11.2001, due to the injuries suffered by him.
3. The appellant/Transport Corporation filed a counter denying the
averments and stated that the accident took place only due to the
negligence of the deceased and that in any case the compensation claimed
was excessive.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and another
witness, namely, Arulsamy, as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. The
appellant/Transport Corporation neither examined any witnesses nor
marked any documents.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the negligence of
the bus driver and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,09,000/- to the
respondents 1 to 3.
6. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as follows:
‘a. Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified?
b. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable?’
7. As regards the finding on negligence, it is seen that the claimants
had examined eyewitness-P.W.2 to prove the manner of the accident and
marked Ex.P1-FIR, which corroborates the version of P.W.2. The
appellant/Transport Corporation had neither examined any witnesses nor
marked any documents in support of their case. In the absence of any
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contrary evidence let in by the appellant/Transport Corporation, the
finding on negligence by the Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.2 and
the averments made in Ex.P1-FIR cannot be faulted.
8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the only ground raised
by the appellant is that the notional income fixed for the deceased, who
was aged 60 years at the time of occurrence, at Rs.3,000/- p.m., is
excessive. The occurrence took place in the year 2002 and according to
the claimant, the deceased was working as an agricultural coolie and was
earning of Rs.5,000/-. Considering the nature of the avocation and year of
accident, this Court is of the view that the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal and the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation was
unable to point out any other infirmity in the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the
award and hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The appellant/Transport Corporation shall deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.2,09,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Nine
Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the
period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. On such deposit, the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to
withdraw the same, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal,
together with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate applications before the Tribunal.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court,
Pudukottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
05.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
