Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Anbu on 24 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CMA.No.138 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMA.No.138 of 2025
and
CMP.No.1228 of 2025
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Anbu
2. Saraswathi
3. Nanthini
4. Minor Sivagami
Rep. by Next Friend Mother Saraswathi ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the decree and judgment dated
30.04.2024 made in MCOP.No.145 of 2023 on the file of the Additional
District Judge, Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Murali Vinodh
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramprabu
for M/s.T.Ananthasekar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.138 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 made in
MCOP.No.145 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
/Additional District Judge, Ariyalur, the appellant-insurance company has
come up with this appeal.
2. Mr.S.Ramprabu for Mr.T.Ananthasekar, learned counsel takes
notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the consent expressed by
the learned counsel on either side, this appeal is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. It is the case of the claimants that, on 13.08.2023 at about 5.25
am., when the deceased Tamilarasan was proceedings from his house
towards Thriuvaiyraru in a TVS Excel Heavy Duty motor cycle bearing
Regn.No.TN-49-P-2901 on Thanjavur-Ariyalur main road, pursuant to
the request of the 1st respondent, who is the father of the deceased, at that
time, the appellant transport corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN-68-N-
0396 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the
opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler in which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased was travelling, due to which the deceased sustained grievous
injuries on his head and right leg and died on spot. Thereby, the
respondents/claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased
Tamilarasan filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.145 of 2023 claiming a
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants
examined two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to
P.14 and on the side of respondents, two witnesses viz. R.W.1 and R.W.2
were examined and exhibits R.1 and R.2 were marked. After trial, the
Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence awarded a
sum of Rs.24,08,360/- towards compensation for the death of the
deceased Tamilarasan, payable by the appellant/insurance company to the
respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurance company
has come up with this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company submitted
that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 19 years and he
did not possess valid Driving license, Insurance and Registration
certificate and the above said accident happened solely due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. While so, merely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
because the FIR came to be registered as against the driver of the
appellant insured vehicle, the tribunal had fastened the majority of the
liability of 85% as against the appellant and had only fixed a contributory
negligence of 15% on the deceased, which is not sustainable, since FIR is
not a substantive document and whatever is spoken in the FIR need not
be taken at its face value and the FIR may not and need not contain all
the details and it is settled law that FIR is not a conclusive proof nor is an
encyclopedia for deciding the case and it is only to set the criminal law in
motion and no further. Further, though the claimants claimed that at the
time of accident the deceased was aged about 19 years and had
completed ITI Course in Welding and was working as a Welder and was
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, in order to prove the
same, no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants.
Even then, the tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.18,000/-, which is highly excessive and the compensation awarded
under other heads are also on higher side and the same has to necessarily
be interfered with. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal
passed the present impugned award, which cannot be said to be
erroneous and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is
already on the lower side and the same does not require further reduction.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents placed on record.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
relates to the fact that the deceased had not possessed valid Driving
license, Registration Certificate and Insurance at the time of the accident
and the entire accident had taken place solely due to the negligence on
the part of the deceased, however, the tribunal had fixed only a
contributory negligence of 15% on the part of the deceased, which is not
sustainable. Though such a stand has been taken by the learned counsel
for the appellant/insurance company, however, mere non possession of
driving license cannot be taken to mean that the contribution is highly on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the side of the deceased. At best, not holding of valid driving license can
only result in a contributory negligence and the tribunal after careful
perusal of all the documents placed before it had fixed 15% contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased, which cannot be said to be
perverse, considering that the vehicle driven by the deceased is a TVS-
Moped.
8. Further, it is borne out by record that, in order to prove the
negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport
corporation, one Settu, who is an individual eye witness has been
examined on the side of the claimants before the tribunal, who has
clearly spoken about the manner in which the accident had taken palce
and he categorically deposed that the accident was due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the appellant transport corporation.
Though such a deposition has been made, however, the appellant had not
taken any endeavour to dislodge the said deposition by placing any
evidence, contra to the same so as to disprove the testimony of the said
witnesses. When an individual eye witness had clearly deposed the
manner in which the accident had happened and had pointed finger on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, for rash and
negligent driving, the appellant having not examined any proper
witnesses and having not adduced any contra evidence in order to
disprove the case of the claimants, the mere fact that the deceased did not
possess valid Driving license, Registration certificate and insurance
cannot be the basis to fasten the entire negligence on the part of the
deceased. Hence, this Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the contributory negligence of 15% fixed by the tribunal on the part of
the deceased.
9. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is the claim of the
appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly
excessive which requires reconsideration. In this regard, this Court
perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and upon perusal of
the impugned award, this Court is of the view that, by no stretch the
compensation awarded in the appeal could be said to be excessive or
disproportionate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed,
confirming the impugned award dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal
in MCOP.No.145 of 2023 and the Appellant-Insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.24,08,360/- awarded by the
tribunal to the credit of MCOP.No.145 of 2023 along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any
already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal is directed to transfer the said amount to the claimants directly
to their bank accounts through RTGS within a period of two (2)
weeks thereafter as per the apportionment made by the tribunal, with
proportionate interest and costs. There shall be no order as to costs in this
appeal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.01.2025
skt
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District Judge,
Ariyalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
and
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
