Madras High Court
S.Munusamy vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation on 9 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.No.2041 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2041 of 2021
1. S.Munusamy
2. Shanmugathai ... Appellants
vs.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(VPM DIV III) Limited,
Kancheepuram. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 05.12.2017 in
M.C.O.P. 396 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosha Kumar
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P. 396 of 2012 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.8,15,000/- for the death of their
minor son Murugan, in a road accident that took place on 24.08.2010.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 24.08.2010, Murugan (since deceased) was attempting to
board the bus bearing Registration Number TN-21-N-0675 on Nagari -
Podatturpet Road. The driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus
unmindful of the passenger boarding the bus, as a result of which, the
deceased hit a wall and sustained injuries. He was immediately rushed to
the Government Hospital, Vellore. However, he succumbed to injuries the
same day.
3. According to the claimants the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent, the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Limited was the cause of accident and therefore,
they are liable to pay compensation to them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Limited, Kancheepuram, contested the claim petition
5. The Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum also concluded that
the deceased had contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% as he
travelled on the footboard of the bus.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation and
challenging the contributory negligence fastened on the part of the
deceased to the extent of 50% by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed
the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. Heard Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr.S.Santhosha Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the deceased was attempting to board the bus and the
driver of the bus did not notice the same and moved his bus, as a result of
which, Murugan hit a wall and sustained injuries and subsequently, died
in the hospital. However, the Tribunal had fixed 50% contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased which according to him, is
erroneous. He also prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra Mr.S.Santhosha Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent would contend that even as per FIR (Ex.P1) the
deceased was travelling on the footboard of the bus and therefore, he
equally contributed to the accident. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was
right in fixing contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.
10. Negligence :
It is disheartening to see most of the youth prefer to put their
lives at risk by hanging on to the railings of the footboard, clutching their
lives in their hand. However, the drivers / conductors must give warning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to these footboard travellers and if the passengers do not pay heed to their
warning they should immediately stop the vehicle. In the instant case, the
young man was boarding the bus and the driver of the bus without
noticing this had moved the bus resulting in his instantaneous death. In
the circumstances, the Tribunal was wrong in fastening contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased and that too to the extent of 50%.
Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
11. Quantum :
In Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others reported in
2013 (2) TN MAC 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the notional
income of a minor child as Rs.30,000/- per annum and granted a sum of
Rs.50,000/- under the other conventional heads. The accident in Kishan
Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (cited supra) happened in the year
1992. In the present case, considering the passage of time and the age of
the victim child, fixing Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of the
deceased would meet the ends of justice. The proper multiplier to be
adopted in the instant case is 18, as per the decision in Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 SCC 121. Calculation for loss of dependency is worked out here under.
Calculation :
Notional Income = Rs.5,000/- x 12 = Rs.60,000/-
Loss of dependency :
= Rs.60,000/- x 18
= Rs.10,80,000/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2),
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate'
and 'funeral expenses' respectively as per the decision in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (cited supra).
Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,90,000/-
(10,80,000 + 80,000 +15,000 +15,000 = 11,90,000) as shown in the
following tabular column.
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 10,80,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 80,000/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 11,90,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.11,90,000/- which would carry interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
13. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
ii. The orders passed by Tribunal fixing contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased is set aside.
iii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.11,90,000/-.
iv. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to
draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.
v. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.11,90,000/- (less the amount already deposited) together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of M.C.O.P.
396 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
vi. On such deposit being made, the appellants / claimants are at
liberty to withdraw the same as per the orders passed by the
Tribunal after following due process of law. The ratio of
apportionment made by the Tribunal shall be kept intact. The
appellants/claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for the
period of delay of 661 days in filing this appeal.
09.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(VPM DIV III) Limited, Kancheepuram.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
