Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Dhanalakshmi on 18 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.1797 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 18.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1797 of 2013
and M.P(MD)No. 3 of 2013
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam Division) Limited,
46, Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
Dhanalakshmi .. Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
12.04.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal challenges the finding on negligence and the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The respondent, since deceased, filed the claim petition stating
that while she was taking plastic water pots in a pushcart, a bus
belonging to the appellant Corporation came from behind in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against her, as a result of which, she
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The appellant herein filed a counter stating that the accident did
not take place due to the negligent driving of its bus driver; and that the
diesel tank accidently dashed against the respondent, which caused the
accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1
and the doctor as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The appellant
examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1.
5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.4,03,485/- as total
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal
ought not to have believed the evidence P.W.1 and fixed the entire
negligence on the appellant; and in any case, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal was excessive.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made
by the appellant and carefully perused the materials available on record.
It is represented that the sole respondent is no more.
8. The questions involved in the instant appeal are as follows:
a)Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is
justified; and
b) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. As regards the first question, it is seen that the respondent/
claimant had examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1, the first
information report, and Ex.P.5, the final report, which corroborate her
version. Further, Ex.P.4, the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report
also corroborates the version of the respondent. The appellant had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
produced any contra evidence to prove their version as regards the
manner of the accident. The evidence of R.W.1, an interested witness,
does not inspire confidence. In the light of the evidence adduced on the
side of the respondent, this Court is of the view that the finding on
negligence by the Tribunal holding the appellant liable to pay
compensation cannot be faulted. The 1st question is answered
accordingly.
10. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the
respondent was aged 61 years at the time of the accident; that she was a
milk vendor and she was also doing a business of preparing savouries
and selling them. Though no documentary evidence was produced to
prove the avocation and income, the Tribunal had fixed the notional
income at Rs.4500/-, which is reasonable. Considering the nature of
injuries suffered by the respondent in the chest and both legs, the
evidence of the doctor and the disability certificate, Ex.P.10, the Tribunal
adopted multiplier method to award compensation under the head 'loss of
earning capacity and loss of future income', which is reasonable. The
learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any infirmity in
adopting multiplier method for granting compensation. The award of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation under the other heads is also reasonable. Therefore, no
interference is called for. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
The question No.2 is answered accordingly.
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
entire compensation amount was deposited and the claimant has already
withdrawn the entire amount with accrued interest.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
