Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Jayasri on 24 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMA No.139 of 2025
and CMP No.1229 of 2025
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem-636 007. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Jayasri
2. Minor Bharath
3. Minor Kirithika
Minors 2 & 3 Represented by next friend
Mother 1st respondent
4. Sarooja
5. Palanisami
6. Velmurugan ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 made in
MCOP No.278 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate court, Sankari.
For appellant : Mr. Nitin D
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel RR1 to 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
The Transport Corporation have filed the appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 made in MCOP No.278 of 2015
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate court, Sankari
questioning the negligence attributed against the driver of the bus and
quantum of compensation.
2. The case of the claimants is that on 28.06.2015 at about
08.30 PM when the deceased Murugesan was riding in his two wheeler
bearing No.TN 45 AH 3483 near Bye pass Bridge of the Salem – Sankari
Main Road, at that time, a TNSTC bus bearing Reg. No.TH 30 N 0473
came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed on the deceased Murugesan bike and caused the
accident. Due to this accident, he sustained injuries and died in the
hospital. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be
filed by the dependents who are the wife, children and father before the
Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation for the death of
Murugesan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a
conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the
Transport Corporation.
4. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to
fix the total compensation at Rs.20,33,000/- under various heads as
follows :-
Sl. Compensation awarded under Amount
No. the head (in Rs.)
1. Loss of income 18,90,000
2. Loss of Love and affection 82,500
3. Funeral exp. 16,500
4 Loss of consortium 44,000
5. Total 20,33,000/-
5. The above compensation was directed to be paid by the
Insurance company with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
6. The Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
questioning the negligence and quantum of compensation passed by the
Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
deceased, without any indication, suddenly crossed the road and hit
against the bus. The appellant bus is not responsible for the accident.
PW1 is the wife of the deceased and she has deposed the evidence
regarding the manner of the accident who is no way present at the place
of the accident. Further, no other independent witness was examined to
prove the manner of the accident and blindly fastened the negligence on
the appellant herein. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1
driver of the bus who is an competent person to speak about the accident.
Ignoring theses facts, the Tribunal, has fastened the negligence as against
the driver of the bus, which is not sustainable.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has
fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- without any proof, which is
highly exorbitant and this Court may interfere with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident had
happened. After considering the entire fact, the Tribunal has rightly
fastened entire negligence on the appellant and awarded compensation for
the death of the deceased Murugesan, which is perfectly in order and the
same does not warrant any interference.
10. Heard the learned counsel for Transport Corporation and the
learned counsel for claimants.
11. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
12. This Court also carefully went through the award passed by
the Tribunal.
13. The first ground to be gone is with regard to the question of
negligence raised by the Transport Corporation. As rightly submitted by
the learned counsel for the claimants that in the present case, to prove the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of the claimants, FIR has been registered against the driver of the
bus. The Tribunal while considering the above evidence, concluded that
the Transport Corporation ought to have examined some independent
witness in this case and whereas, they examined only the driver of the bus
and not examined any independent witness. Hence, the Tribunal came to
a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the
Transport Corporation.
14. It is true that there was no clinching evidence beyond
reasonable doubt to establish that the accident had taken place in the
manner in which the driver of the bus had projected it. The driver will
always give the version which is advantageous to him. The claimants on
the other hand will give a version which is advantageous to them. That is
the reason why, the Tribunal was insisting for an independent witness. In
view of the same, the decision that was arrived at by the Tribunal cannot
be held to be perverse. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal by fixing
the negligence against the driver of the bus is hereby confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, this Court finds
that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal under various heads is reasonable.
16. One disturbing factor in this case is that the accident had
taken place in the year 2015 and the deceased was aged at 39 years and
he was running a mechanic shed and also working as a lorry driver at that
time of the accident. However, the claimants have not produced any
records to prove the income of the deceased, for which, the Tribunal has
fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as notional income, which is perfectly in
order. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is not sustainable.
17. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.01.2025
rli
M.DHANDAPANI.,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rli
Speaking Judgment/Non-speaking Judgment
Index :Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/No
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate court, Sankari.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High court, Madras.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.139 of 2025
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
