Madras High Court
Managing Director vs Kaliyan on 18 September, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
CMA No.155 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.1339 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
CMA No.155 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.1339 of 2023
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumakonam Division. ... Appellant
Vs.
Kaliyan ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 12.11.2021 in
M.C.O.P.6457 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Senapathi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Mohan Babu
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.155 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.1339 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellant in the present appeal is the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division and the respondent in
M.C.O.P.6457 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The respondent filed the above said claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for
the death of one Anjalai (brother's wife of the claimant), in a road accident
that took place on 24.08.2017.
3. The case of the claimants in a nutshell is as follows:
On 24.08.2017, Anjalai (since deceased) was walking along
Udayarpalayam – Ariyalur Road and when she was nearing
Udayarpalayam bus stop, a bus bearing Registration Number TN-45-N-
2743 belonging to the appellant, the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, hit her, causing instantaneous death of Anjalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. According to the claimant the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-45-N-2743 belonging
to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation was the cause of accident
and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to him.
5. The appellant, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam Division, contested the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, fastened
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and awarded compensation
of Rs.9,06,200/- to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, vide
its orders dated 12.11.2021.
7. The appellant, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has
filed the present appeal questioning their liability to pay compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Heard Mr.C.Senapathi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.R.Mohan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
9. Mr.C.Senapathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the claimant is the brother-in-law of the deceased and
therefore, he cannot maintain a claim petition. It is also his contention that
the Tribunal had awarded a huge sum of Rs.9,06,200/- towards
compensation to the claimant.
10. Mr.R.Mohan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent / claimant contended that the claimant was aged 70 years and
the deceased (Anjalai) a widow was aged 54 years she was actually taking
care of the claimant and both of them were living under the same roof. He
also contended that the claimant is the blood brother of the husband of the
deceased Anjalai and in the circumstances the Award passed by the
Tribunal cannot be found fault with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. It is seen from the records that the claimant is the brother-in-law
of Anjalai (deceased) and it is not in dispute that Anjalai and Kaliyan were
living under the same roof. In fact, Anjalai was taking care of Kaliyan as is
seen from the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant. Anjalai did
not have any other person as legal heirs and therefore, the claim petition
filed by her brother-in-law is perfectly in order.
12. The Tribunal had awarded just compensation of Rs.9,06,200/-
following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC
601 and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, no interference is called
for, as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. In the result,
i. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
ii. the Award dated 12.11.2021 in M.C.O.P.6457 of 2017 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court,
Chennai, is hereby confirmed.
18.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
mtl
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
R. HEMALATHA, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mtl
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
