Madras High Court

Mrs.Valli vs The Managing Director on 4 April, 2025

                                                                                          CMA.No.479 of 2025


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        Dated :04.04.2025

                                                              CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                     CMA No.479 of 2025

                       1.Mrs.Valli
                       2.Arvindraj
                       3.Anushiya                                                         ... Appellants

                                                                   Vs.
                       The Managing Director
                       Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
                       (Villupuram Division - III),
                       Kancheepuram.                                                       ... Respondent
                       Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                       Vehicle Act, to enhance the award passed in MCOP No.46 of 2022 dated
                       21.03.2023 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.1,
                       Special District Court, Thiruvallur.
                                       For Appellant         : Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan
                                       For Respondents: Mr.C.R.Suresh Kumar
                                                         JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants

challenging the award passed by the tribunal fixing 20% contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )

2. It was the case of the appellants/ claimants that the husband of

the 1st claimant and the father of the claimants 2 and 3 namely Arumugam,

died in a road accident that had occurred on 07.03.2022. According to the

claimants, the deceased was walking on the extreme left-hand side of the

road proceeding from Pooonamallee to Tiruvallur. The driver of the

Respondent Corporation bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner and hit against the deceased pedestrian. As a result of the impact

of the accident, the deceased suffered multiple injuries and died on the

spot. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of

Rs.50,00,000/-.

3. The respondent filed a counter and resisted the claim petition on

the ground that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part

of the deceased. According to the respondent, the deceased, who came

from a TASMAC shop, attempted to cross the road from left to right,

stood over the center median and fell down on the road.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as PW1 and

two eyewitnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. The Deputy Block

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )

Development Officer from the office of the deceased was examined as

PW4. On behalf of the claimants, 20 documents were marked as Ex. P1 to

Ex. P20. The driver of the respondent bus was examined as RW1. Two

documents were marked on the side of the respondent as Ex.R1 and

Ex.R2.

5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence available on record,

came to the conclusion that the driver of the respondent corporation bus

was primarily responsible for the accident and fixed 80% negligence on

his part. The Tribunal fixed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased and ultimately, awarded a sum of Rs.27,29,962/- after deducting

20% towards contributory negligence. Aggrieved by the fixation of

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the claimants have

come before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that both PW-2

and PW-3, eye witnesses clearly deposed that the negligence was on the

part of the driver of the respondent bus and the same has been overlooked

by the Tribunal while fixing contributory negligence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )

7. The learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation submitted

that PW-3 in his evidence clearly admitted that the bus did not come in a

high speed and hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of

the respondent corporation bus. The learned counsel also submitted that

the rough sketch uploaded in CCTNS portal would indicate that the

accident had occurred near center median but not as contended by the

claimants in the claim petition.

8. A perusal of the award passed by the tribunal would indicate that

the tribunal relied on the rough sketch uploaded in CCTNS portal (Crime

and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems), a portal maintained by

Tamil Nadu Police and came to the conclusion that the accident had

occurred near center median. However, the rough sketch was not marked

on either side before the tribunal. The tribunal ought not have relied on

rough sketch uploaded in the portal when it is not part of the records

before the tribunal. A further perusal of the evidence of eyewitnesses, PW-

2 and PW-3, would indicate that they have clearly deposed that the

accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )

of the respondent corporation. The tribunal, in its award, recorded as if

PW-3 admitted that the bus did not come on high speed. However, there is

no such admission by PW-3. In his evidence, he says as follows.

“ngUe;jpd; Xl;Leh; rhiyapd; ,lJ gf;fkhf brd;W bfhz;oUe;j 5 mo cauKs;s MWKfj;ij ftdpf;fhky; thfdj;ij Xl;oa fhuzj;jpdhy; ,e;j tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ”.

9. When it was suggested to him that the deceased attempted to

cross the road and invited the accident, the same was denied by him. In

the light of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, which are complementary to

each other, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that

the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the

driver of the respondent corporation. Therefore, the finding of the

Tribunal in fixing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased

is set aside. Accordingly, 20% deduction made by the Tribunal towards

contributory negligence is also liable to be set aside. Hence, the claimants

are entitled to Rs. 34,12,452/- as arrived at by the Tribunal. The split-up

details of the compensation amount arrived at by the Tribunal is modified

as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )

Sl Description Amount Amount Award . awarded by awarded confirmed or N Tribunal by this enhanced or o (Rs) Court (Rs) granted

1. Loss of dependency 32,47,452/- 32,47,452/- Confirmed

2. Loss of Estate 16,500/- 16,500/- Confirmed

3. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- Confirmed

4. Loss of Consortium 1,32,000/- 1,32,000/- Confirmed (44,000 x 3) Total 34,12,452/- 34,12,452/- Confirmed Less:20%contributory 6,82,490/- - Set aside negligence

Net compensation 27,29,962/- 34,12,452/- Enhanced by Rs.6,82,490/-

10. In view of the discussions made earlier, the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is allowed by setting aside the fixation of 20% contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellants/claimants are

entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the delay

period of 375 days as per order in CMP.No.20522 of 2024) from the date

of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Respondent

Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount before the

Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )

if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

Judgment. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same along with

interests and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by filing a