Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Kavitha on 12 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 13.02.2025
Pronounced on : 12.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
&
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1117 to 1119, 10940 of 2019, 12470 of 2018, 2057,
2058 of 2020 & 668 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.97 of 2019
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Limited,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ 1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Kavitha
2.Suba
3.Vijaya Rekha
4.Akila ...Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
1/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
5.M.Balaraman ...5th Respondent / 2nd Respondent
6.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasaiwalkam,
Chennai – 600 084.
Through its The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Railway Feeder Road,
Virudhunagar.
7.S.Sankaran
8.The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Sri Meenakshi Plaza, 1st Floor,
Plot No.HIG 55, 80 Feet Road,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.5 to 8/Respondent No.2 to 5
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2010 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar and allow
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
2/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondents : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran–for R1 to R4
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar – for R5
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran – for R6
Mr.V.Sakthivel – for R8
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2019
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Limited,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ 1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Somu
2.Indhrani
3.Gopinath ...Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners
4.M.Balaraman ...4th Respondent / 2nd Respondent
5.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasaiwalkam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
3/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
Chennai – 600 084.
Through its The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Railway Feeder Road,
Virudhunagar.
6.S.Sankaran
7.The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Sri Meenakshi Plaza, 1st Floor,
Plot No.HIG 55, 80 Feet Road,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.5 to 7/Respondent No.3 to 5
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2010 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar and allow
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondents : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran–for R1 to R3
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar – for R4
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran – for R5
Mr.V.Sakthivel – for R7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
4/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.99 of 2019
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Limited,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ 1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Kavitha
2.Suba
3.Vijaya Rekha
4.Akila ...Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners
5.M.Balaraman ...5th Respondent / 2nd Respondent
6.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasaiwalkam,
Chennai – 600 084.
Through its The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Railway Feeder Road,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
5/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
7.S.Sankaran
8.The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Sri Meenakshi Plaza, 1st Floor,
Plot No.HIG 55, 80 Feet Road,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.5 to 8/Respondent No.2 to 5
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2010 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar and allow
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondents : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran–for R1 to R4
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar – for R5
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran – for R6
Mr.V.Sakthivel – for R8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
6/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.1204 of 2018
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Limited,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ 1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Kavitha
2.Suba
3.Vijaya Rekha
4.Akila ...Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners
5.M.Balaraman ...5th Respondent / 2nd Respondent
6.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasaiwalkam,
Chennai – 600 084.
Through its The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Railway Feeder Road,
Virudhunagar.
7.Premkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
7/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
8.S.Sankaran
9.The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Sri Meenakshi Plaza, 1st Floor,
Plot No.HIG 55, 80 Feet Road,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.6 to 9/Respondent No.3 to 6
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2010 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar and allow
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondents : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran–for R1 to R4
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar – for R5
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran – for R6
Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh – for R7
Mr.V.Sakthivel – for R9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
8/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.71 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Limited,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Nalini
2.K.Vaishnav
3.Minor.K.Vaibhav
(Minor is represented by his guardian mother
Nalini, 1st respondent herein.)
4.S.Kondurajan @ S.K.Rajan
5.Mangammal ...Respondents 1 to 5 / Petitioners
6.Saravanan ...6th Respondent / 1st Respondent
7.M.Balaraman
8.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasaiwalkam,
Chennai – 600 084. ... Respondent No.7 & 8/Respondent No.3 & 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
9/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
17.06.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2011 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Dindigul and allow
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondents : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan–for R1 to R7
Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan – for R8
Cross.Obj(MD)No.5 of 2021
1.Nalini
2.K.Vaishnav
3.Minor.K.Vaibhav
(Minor is represented by his guardian mother
Nalini, 1st respondent herein.)
...Cross Objectors / Respondents 1 to 3
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Limited,
Kumbakonam. ... 1st Respondent/Appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
10/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
2.S.Kondurajan @ S.K.Rajan
3.Mangammal
4.Saravanan ...6th Respondent / 1st Respondent
5.M.Balaraman
6.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 084. ... Respondents 5 & 6/Respondent No.4 to 6
PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.06.2019 made in
MCOP No.552 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Dindigul.
For Cross Objectors : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan
For Respondents : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth – for R1
Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan – for R6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
11/75
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
& Cross Objection No.5 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
The appellant / Transport Corporation has filed these Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019 and 1204 of
2018 against the fair order and decretal order dated 20.04.2017 made in
M.C.O.P.Nos.80, 81, 82 and 83 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.
2. C.M.A.(MD)No.71 of 2021 has been filed against the fair
order and decretal order dated 17.06.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.552 of
2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court,
Dindigul. The claimants in the said case have also filed a cross-
objection.
3. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants in
MCOP.No.81 of 2010 before the Tribunal are as follows: (In CMA.
(MD)No.1204 of 2018)
(a) The deceased Lavanya was working as an Assistant
System Engineer at Tata Consultancy Services Limited in Chennai. She
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. She was about 26 years
only at the time of the accident, was very young and energetic.
Petitioners 1 to 4 had lost their beloved elder sister at such a young age.
Due to the crucial accident, the future of the petitioners is put in the dark.
(b) On the fateful day of 20.10.2009 at about 8:40 AM when
the deceased was travelling along with her parents in a Lancer Car
bearing Registration No.TN–01–AC–0148, was proceeding from Trichy
to Chennai, which was driven by its driver at a normal speed observing
all the traffic rules and regulations of the road. While the vehicle was
nearing, Ulundurpet diversion, at the time of the accident, a bus bearing
Registration No.TN–63–N–1292 came from Subway to Main Road, it
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without
noticing the oncoming vehicles from the main road and dashed the
Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–01–A–0148 in which the
deceased was travelling. Due to the crucial accident, the deceased
sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and died on the
spot.
(c) The marriage between the deceased and the fourth
respondent was solemnized on 14.09.2009. However due to the cruel
attitude of the fourth respondent, the deceased was not able to live with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent acted cruelly and drove
away the deceased from his house. So the deceased was forced to live
with her father and the marriage between the deceased and the fourth
respondent has been irretrievably broken down. Hence the deceased
executed a Will on 10.09.2009 in favour of her father to succeed all her
estate and benefits. Further, the fourth respondent never cared about the
deceased and never wanted to live with her. As per the Will and the
dependency of the deceased, the petitioners are entitled to get
compensation from the respondents.
(d) The deceased Lavanya was aged about 26 years at the time of
the accident. She was young, energetic, and well-built in the prime of her
youth. Had she survived the accident, She would have lived up to 100
years. She had a charming personality. She was working as an Assistant
System Engineer in Chennai and getting a salary of Rs.50,000/- per
month. Had the deceased survived the accident, then the deceased would
surely have earned a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. She had no vices
and she used to hand over her earnings to her parents, and it was spent
towards the welfare of the petitioners by her parents. The petitioners are
dependent on the income of the deceased, Lavanya. Lavanya showed
much love and affection towards the petitioners, in turn the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
were also showing love and affection to the deceased. Further, due to the
sudden demise, the whole family is suffering not only from financial
difficulties but also from several mental shocks and agony. The
petitioners are unable to forget their elder sister's loss and used to wake
up at night times and cry for their sister. The petitioners have been
spending most of their days without taking any meals bearing reminded
of their sister. The petitioners are dreaming about the prosperous future
of their life. But due to the accident, the entire future of petitioners is put
into the dark. Apart from the loss of income, the petitioner is undergoing
immeasurable mental agony and worries. The death of Lavanya cannot
compensated in terms of money but for filing of this petition, the
petitioners estimated their loss of Rs.55 lakhs and came forward with this
petition, praying for a grant of compensation.
3. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants in
MCOP.No.80 of 2010 before the Tribunal are as follows: (In
CMA(MD)No.97 of 2019)
(a) The deceased Saraswati was doing cotton textile business
at Dindigul. She was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per month. She was
aged 60 years only. At the time of the accident, the deceased was hale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
and healthy. The petitioners 1 to 4 had lost their beloved mother. Due to
the crucial accident, the future of the petitioners is put in dark
(b) On a fateful day of 20.10.2009 at about 8:40 AM when the
deceased was travelling in a Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–01-
AC–0148, it was proceeding from Trichy to Chennai. It was driven by its
driver at a normal speed while observing all the traffic rules and
regulations of the road. While the vehicle was nearing, Ulundurpet
diversion, at that time of accident, a Bus bearing Registration No.TN–63
–N–1292 came from Subway to Main Road, it was driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner and without noticing the oncoming vehicles
from the main road and dashed on Lancer Car bearing Registration
No.TN – 01–A–0148, in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the
crucial accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all
over the body and died on the spot.
(c) The deceased Saraswati was aged about 60 years at the time of
the accident. Had she survived the accident she would have lived up to
100 years. She was doing cotton textile business. She was earning a sum
of Rs.6000/- per month. The deceased Saraswati was bestowing much
love and affection towards the petitioners, in turn, the petitioners were
also showing love and affection with the deceased. Further, due to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
sudden demise, the whole family is suffering not only from financial
difficulties but also from several mental shocks and agony. The
petitioners are unable to forget their lost mother and used to wake up at
night times and cry for their mother. The petitioners spend most of their
days without taking any meals bearing reminded of their mother. But due
to the accident, the future of the petitioners is put to darkness. Apart from
the loss of income, the petitioners are undergoing immeasurable mental
agony and worries. The death of Saraswathy cannot compensated in
terms of money, but for the filing of this petition, the petitioners
estimated their loss of Rs.10 lakhs and came forward with this petition
praying for a grant of compensation
4. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants in
MCOP.No.82 of 2010 before the Tribunal are as follows: (In
CMA(MD)No.98 of 2019)
(a) The deceased Vishnuchakkaravarthy was doing Driver. He was
earning a sum of Rs.3,200/- per month. He was aged about 25 years only.
At the time of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy. The
petitioners 1 and 2 had lost their beloved son and the 3rd petitioner had
lost his beloved brother. Due to the crucial accident, the future of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
petitioners is put in dark
(b) On a fateful day of 20.10.2009 at about 8:40 AM when the
deceased was driving a Lancer bearing Registration No.TN–01- AC–
0148, was proceeding from Trichy to Chennai, which belongs to the
second respondent and he drove it at a normal speed while observing all
the traffic rules and regulations of the road. While the vehicle was
nearing, Ulundurpet diversion, at that time of accident, a Bus bearing
Registration No.TN–63 –N–1292 came from Subway to Main Road, it
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without
noticing the oncoming vehicles from the main road and dashed on Lancer
Car bearing Registration No.TN– 01–A–0148, which was driven by the
deceased. Due to the crucial accident, the deceased sustained multiple
grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot.
(c) The deceased Vishnuchakkaravarthy was aged about 25 years at
the time of the accident. Had he survived the accident he would have
lived upto 100 years. He was working as a Driver and earning a sum of
Rs.3,200/- per month. Had the deceased survived the accident, then the
deceased would surely have earned a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. He
had no vices and he used to hand over his earnings to his parents, and it
was spent towards the welfare of the petitioners. The petitioners are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
dependent on the income of the deceased, Vishnuchakkaravarthy. The
deceased Vishnuchakkaravarthy was bestowing much love and affection
towards the petitioners, in turn, the petitioners were also showing love
and affection with the deceased. Further, due to the sudden demise, the
whole family is suffering not only from financial difficulties but also
from several mental shocks and agony. The petitioners are unable to
forget their lost son. Due to the accident, the future of the petitioners is
put to darkness. Apart from the loss of income, the petitioners are
undergoing immeasurable mental agony and worries. The death of
Vishnuchakkaravarthy cannot be compensated in terms of money, but for
the filing of this petition, the petitioners estimated their loss of
Rs.10 lakhs and came forward with this petition praying for a grant of
compensation.
(d) A Criminal complaint has been lodged with the Ulundurpet
Police Station in FIR No.534 of 2009 on the same day under Section 279,
304(A) IPC and it is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ulundurpet.
(e) The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent is the owner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
of the Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN – 01–AC–0148. The 3rd
respondent is the insurer of the second respondent. Respondents 2 and 3
are added as a formal party to decide these proceedings. Hence, all the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners.
(f) As per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the respondents
may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners in the first
instance on the principle of no-fault liability.
5. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants in
MCOP.No.83 of 2010 before the Tribunal are as follows: (In
CMA(MD)No.99 of 2019)
(a) The deceased Thangaraj was doing real estate business at
Dindigul. He was earning a sum of Rs.10,200/- per month. He was aged
about 70 years only. At the time of the accident, the deceased was hale
and healthy. The petitioners 1 to 4 had lost their beloved father. Due to
the crucial accident, the future of the petitioners is put in the dark.
(b) On a fateful day of 20.10.2009 at about 8.40 AM when the
deceased was travelling in a Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–01-
AC–0148, was proceeding from Trichy to Chennai, it was driven by its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
driver at a normal speed observing all the traffic rules and regulations of
the road. While the vehicle was nearing, Ulundurpet diversion, at that
time of accident, a Bus bearing Registration No.TN–63 –N–1292 came
from Subway to Main Road, it was driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner and without noticing the oncoming vehicles from the
main road and dashed on Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN– 01–
A–0148, in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the crucial
accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the
body and died on the spot.
(c) The deceased Thangaraj was aged about 70 years at the time of
the accident. Had he survived the accident he would have lived upto 100
years. He was doing real estate business and earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month. Had the deceased survived the accident, then the
deceased would surely have earned a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The
deceased Thangaraj was bestowing much love and affection towards the
petitioners, in turn, the petitioners were also showing love and affection
with the deceased. Further, due to the sudden demise, the whole family
is suffering not only from financial difficulties but also from several
mental shocks and agony. The petitioners are unable to forget their lost
father. Due to the accident, the future of the petitioners is put to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
darkness. Apart from the loss of income, the petitioners are undergoing
immeasurable mental agony and worries. The death of Thangaraj cannot
compensated in terms of money, but for the filing of this petition, the
petitioners estimated their loss of Rs.15 lakhs and came forward with this
petition praying for a grant of compensation.
(d) A Criminal complaint has been lodged with the Ulundurpet
Police Station in FIR No.534 of 2009 on the same day under Section 279,
304(A) IPC and it is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ulundurpet.
(e) The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent is the owner
of the Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN – 01–AC–0148. The 3rd
respondent is the insurer of the second respondent. Respondents 2 and 3
are added as a formal party to decide these proceedings. Hence, all the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners.
(f) As per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the respondents
may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners in the first
instance on the principle of no-fault liability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
6. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants in
MCOP.No.552 of 2011 before the Tribunal are as follows: (In
CMA(MD)No.71 of 2021)
(a) The deceased Kannan was an Ex-serviceman and drew a sum of
Rs.4,500/- per month as pension. He also doing agriculturist and earns a
sum of Rs.1,11,600/- per month. He was aged about 42 years only. At
the time of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy. The 1st
petitioner is the wife, the petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons and the
petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. Due to the crucial
accident, the future of the petitioners is put in dark
(b) On 20.10.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., when the deceased Kannan
was travelling in a Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–01-AC–0148,
was proceeding from Trichy to Chennai, which was driven by its driver at
a normal speed by observing traffic rules, while the vehicle was nearing,
Ulundurpet diversion, at that time, a Bus bearing Registration No.TN–63
–N–1292 came from Chennai to Trichy, it was driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner and without noticing the oncoming vehicles
from the main road dashed on Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–
01–A–0148, in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the crucial
accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
body and died on the spot.
(c) The deceased Kannan was aged about 42 years at the time of
the accident. He was an ex-serviceman and drew a pension at Rs.4,500/-
and as an Agriculturist earning a sum of Rs.1,11,600/- per month. The
petitioners are dependent on the income of the deceased, Kannan.
Further, due to the sudden demise, the whole family is suffering not only
from financial difficulties but also from several mental shocks and agony.
Due to the accident, the future of the petitioners is put to darkness. Apart
from the loss of income, the petitioners are undergoing immeasurable
mental agony and worries. The 1st respondent is the driver of the bus
and the 2nd respondent is the owner. The 3rd respondent is the owner of
the Car and the same is insured with the 4th respondent. The death of
Kannan cannot be compensated in terms of money, but for the filing of
this petition, the petitioners estimated their loss of Rs.50 lakhs and came
forward with this petition praying for a grant of compensation.
7. Brief averments contained in the counter filed by the first
respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.80 to 83/2010 are as follows :
(a) The accident did not happen in the manner as set out in
the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
(b) On 20.10.2009, the 1st Respondent's Bus bearing
Registration No.TN-63-N-1292 driven by its driver with all care and
caution was proceeding from Chennai to Trichy via Ulundurpettai from
north to south. At about 08.40 hours, when the 1st Respondent's Bus
driver was cautiously proceeding from National Highways to enter the
service road towards Ulundurpettai Town on the right side, he used horns
and switched on the headlights of the Bus and after adhering to the traffic
signals while crossing the road, the front portion of the Bus entered the
service road and while the rear portion of the Bus was on the process of
entering the service road, all of a sudden a Lancer Car came from south
to north from Trichy to Chennai in a break neck speed without caring for
the traffic near the service road and without waiting for the Bus passing
into the service road by slowing down the speed of the Car driven rashly
which ended in the accident. The Police registered a criminal case against
the Car driver Vishnuchakkaravarthy. The accident occurred due to the
rashness and negligence of the Car driver and so the 1st Respondent is
not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants.
(c) The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased
in all the MCOPs are not admitted. The Claimants 1 to 4 in M.C.O.P.
Nos.80/2010, 81/2010 and 83/2010 are married and they are not the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
dependents on the income of the deceased and they lead an independent
life with their Husbands at various places. The compensation amounts
claimed are highly excessive and without any basis. The Petitions are
liable to be dismissed with costs. Interest claim is very high and the
petitioners are eligible to interest for 6% if any award is passed against
this corporation.
8. Brief averments contained in the counter filed by the
second respondent M.C.O.P. Nos.80 to 83/2010 are as follows :
(a) The Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN-01 AC-0148
was purchased by the 2nd Respondent on 29.09.2006 under the Hire
Purchase Agreement by availing loan from Syndicate Bank, Aminjikarai
Branch, Chennai and was registered on 04.10.2006. The Lancer Car was
insured with the United India Insurance Company from 04.10.2006 to
03.10.2007 and subsequently renewed periodically up to 03.10.2009. On
03.06.2009 the vehicle was sold to one Sankaran for Rs.3,05,000/- who
executed a Delivery Note and took delivery of the vehicle on 03.06.2009
and assured that he is ready to bear the entire risk from the time and date
of delivery. Hence, this Respondent is in no way connected with the
Lancer Car TN-01 AC-0148 after 03.06.2009 and also on the date of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
accident. On 04.06.2009, the 2nd Respondent had also informed the
Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Chennai Central
Ayanavaram about the selling of the vehicle to Sankaran. The accident
occurred only 4 months later to the transfer of ownership. Hence, the 2nd
Respondent has no liability on the date of the accident. The 2nd
Respondent is impleaded as a formal party only. The age, occupation and
monthly income of the deceased in all the MCOPs are denied. The
Petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. Brief averments contained in the counter filed by the 3rd
in M.C.O.P. Nos.80 to 83/2010 are as follows :
(a) The entire accident happened as alleged by the Claimants
by the negligence of the driver of the TNSTC Bus.
(b) The Bus driver drew the bus in a rash and negligent
driving near Ulundurpet diversion without noticing the oncoming
vehicle, suddenly crossed the main road and dashed against the Lancer
car. So the 1st Respondent is only responsible for paying the
compensation to the Claimants. The Lancer Car was not insured with the
3rd Respondent on the date of the accident on 20.10.2009. The 3rd
Respondent had issued policy only for the period from 04.10.2008 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
03.10.2009. The Policy expired on 03.10.2009 itself and was not
subsequently renewed. Since there is no insurance policy on the date of
the accident, the 3rd Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to
the Claimants. The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased
in all the MCOPs are denied. The Petitions are liable to be dismissed
with costs.
10. Brief averments contained in the counter filed by the 4th
Respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.80/2010, 82/2010, 83/2010 and the 5th
Respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 81/2010 are as follows:-
The Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN-01 AC-0148
was sold by the 4th Respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.80/2010, 82/2010,
83/2010 and the 5th Respondent in M.C.O.P.No.81/2010 on 08.06.2009
to one Abdul Gafoor for Rs.3,70,000/- who executed a Delivery Note on
the same date and took possession of the vehicle at his own risk on the
same date. On the date of the accident, the said Abdul Gafoor is the
absolute owner of the vehicle. This Respondent is not the owner of the
vehicle on the date of the accident. The fact of the sale of the vehicle was
also intimated to the prior owner Balaraman. The accident has occurred
only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent's Bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
driver. This Respondent has been impleaded only as a formal party. So
the Claim Petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs.
11. Brief averments contained in the counter filed by the 5th
Respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.80/2010, 82/2010, 83/2010 and the 6th
Respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 81/2010 are as follows:-
There was no rashness or negligence on the part of the Car
driver. While the Car was driven at a slow speed by observing all traffic
rules, the 1st Respondent's Bus driver drove the Bus in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed with the Car. So he is alone responsible for
the accident. The Car owners and the Insurance Companies are only
formal parties even as per the case of the Claimants. So this Respondent
is not liable to pay any Compensation. There is no valid Insurance cover
for the Car at the time of the accident with this Respondent. As per the
policy, the insurance period commenced on 21.10.2009. But the accident
took place on 20.10.2009. The age, occupation and monthly income of
the deceased in all the MCOPs are denied. The amount of compensation
claimed is highly excessive. The Petitions are liable to be dismissed with
costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
12. Brief averments of the Counter filed by the 4th
Respondent in M.C.O.P.No.81/2010 claiming Counter Claim are as
follows:-
(a) It is true that on 20.10.2009 at about 08.40 a.m., the Wife
of the 4th respondent namely, Lavanya, who was travelling along with
her Parents in the Lancer Car TN-01 AC-0148 dashed against the 1st
Respondent Bus bearing Registration No.TN-63 N-1292 coming in the
opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in
which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.
(b) The Marriage between the 4th Respondent and the
deceased took place on 14.09.2009 at Dindigul and the 4th Respondent
and the deceased were living in Bangalore in the House of the 4th
Respondent, though she was working in Chennai. The 4th Respondent
alone is the legal heir of the deceased Lavanya as the legally wedded
Husband. The Marriage between the 4th Respondent and the deceased
never broke down and they were co-habiting till her death. There is no
strained relationship between them.
(c) The allegations that the deceased executed a Will on
10.09.2009 in favour of her Father to succeed in connection with all her
estates and benefits are false and the alleged Will dated 10.09.2009 is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
forged document. The 4th Respondent alone performed the last rites of
the deceased as per their customs. The 4th Respondent issued legal notice
to the Claimants on 24.05.2010. Though they received it, they did not
reply. The Tashildar, Madurai South issued the Legal Heir Certificate to
the 4th Respondent for the deceased Lavanya. The 1st Claimant is
permanently residing at Trichy. The 2nd Claimant has completed M.B.B.S.
and after her marriage is permanently living with her Husband in
Bangalore. The 3rd Claimant is a B.E. Decree-holder and after her
marriage, she is also residing in Bangalore. The 4th Claimant is a Doctor
and her Husband is also a Doctor and both are serving in the U.K. They
are not entitled to seek compensation for the death of the deceased
Lavanya. The deceased Lavanya was 26 years old completed her B.Tech
Degree and was working as an Assistant System Engineer in TCS,
Chennai and was drawing a sum of Rs.43,572/- per month as salary as
well as other allowances. Due to the sudden demise of the Deceased
Lavanya, the 4th Respondent has lost the consortium, love affection and
earnings of the deceased. So he claims the compensation amount of
Rs.65,00,000/- for the death of his Wife Lavanya. The accident occurred
due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's Bus driver. However, all the
respondents are liable to pay compensation to this Respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
13. Before the Tribunal during joint trial with M.C.O.P.
Nos.80 to 83 of 2010, on the side of the petitioners, PW1 to P.W.7 were
examined and Exs.P1 to Exs.P19 were marked. On the side of the
respondents, RW1 to R.W.6 were examined and Exs.R1 to Exs.R.11 were
marked in M.C.O.P.Nos.80 to 83 of 2010.
14. In M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2011, on the side of the
petitioners, PW1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Exs.P23 were
marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 and R.W.2 were examined
and Exs.R1 to Exs.R.5 were marked.
15. After hearing both sides, the trial Judge awarded a sum
of Rs.7,60,000/- towards compensation for the claimants in M.C.O.P.
No.552 of 2011. A sum of Rs.6,68,000/- towards compensation for the
claimants in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2010. A sum of Rs.77,64,439/- towards
compensation for the claimants and 4th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.81 of
2010. A sum of Rs.12,97,000/- towards compensation for the claimants
in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2010. A sum of Rs.6,95,000/- towards compensation
for the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2010. The learned Judge directed
the appellant/ Transport Corporation to pay the entire award amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
within two months.
16. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of, 1204 of 2018 and 71 of 2021
have been filed by the Transport Corporation Company who is the 1st
respondent before the lower Court in MCOP.Nos.80 to 83 of 2010 and
2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2011 against the negligence and
quantum with the following among other grounds :
(i) That the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of
evidence and probabilities of the case.
(ii) That the Tribunal failed to note that the accident had occurred
only due to the negligence of the driver of the Car bearing Registration
No.TN-01-AC-0148 who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the rear portion of the bus and therefore, the driver of
the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the accident.
(iii) That the Tribunal failed to note that the driver of the
Appellant's bus, after giving proper signals and confirming that there was
no vehicle movement on the other side of the road, entered the
Ulundurpet service road from the highway and it was only the driver of
the car who did not notice the Appellant's bus entering into the service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
road, came from north to south in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the rear portion of the bus.
(iv) That the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the mere fact that the
car had dashed on the rear portion of the bus itself would prove that the
bus had already entered into the service road after taking a turn from the
highway and it was only the car driver who failed to notice the bus and
invited the accident.
(v) That the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the FIR was
registered only against the driver of the car in which the manner of the
accident was categorically mentioned. Even the Tribunal itself has found
that the major portion of the bus had turned and entered into the service
road and therefore, the Tribunal's conclusions that the driver of the bus
alone was responsible for the accident is nothing but self-contradictory.
(vi) It is well-settled law that the entire burden of proof lies only
on the claimants to prove the factum of accident and negligence
particularly in a claim under section 166 of the M.V. Act. In the present
case, the claimants have failed to discharge their burden of proving their
allegations of negligence against the bus driver by adducing substantial
oral or documentary evidence, hence the Tribunal ought not to have held
that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
(vii) That the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,43,000/-
towards loss of earnings in the absence of any substantial oral or
documentary evidence either to prove the avocation or income of the
deceased.
(viii) That the Tribunal failed to note that the claimants are married
daughters of the deceased and they were not dependants of the deceased.
It is settled law that the non-dependant claimants are entitled only to the
loss of estate i.e., the award that can be passed towards "No Fault
Liability" as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjuri
Bera's case 2007 (1) TNMAC 385.
(ix) The quantum of compensation in all cases is excessive and
arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.
Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and allow these
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
17. Aggrieved with the impugned award passed in
MCOP.No.552 of 2011, the respondents 1 to 3/ petitioners 1 to 3 have
come out with the cross objection in Cros.Obj(MD)No.5 of 2021 for
enhancement of compensation on the following grounds :
(1) That the judgment of the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
contrary to law, the weight of evidence and against the probabilities of
the case in so far as against the disallowed portion of compensation.
2. That the income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim petition
is Rs.4,500/- for pension and agriculture activities earned Rs.1,11,600/-
per month. But the Tribunal had arbitrarily concluded the income of the
deceased as Rs.4,600/-per month. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court
had rendered a judgment that even a normal man could able to earn a sum
of Rs.6,500/- per month. However, the Tribunal did not consider the
deceased agricultural activities earnings.
3. While fixing the income, the Tribunal failed to fix the future
prospects of the deceased. The deceased was only aged about 42 years at
the time of the accident, considering the same the Tribunal below ought
to have taken 50% of the income as future prospects.
4. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
love and affection for a sum of Rs.50,000/- is very meagre and under the
head transportation for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is very meagre and the same
has to be enhanced.
5. That the Tribunal failed to consider that the dependents are five
family members and as the entire family was dependent on the deceased,
the formula for the loss of dependency taken by the Tribunal may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
modified.
6. That the Tribunal failed to consider the age of the deceased and
the multiplier method taken for the consideration is not proper.
7. That the Tribunal failed to award the other heads the
compensation in the claim petition and that may be enhanced.
8. That the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was an Ex-
Serviceman and received the pension. To that effect, the claimants
produced the statement of Account, PAN card, and Bank passbook as
Exs.P15 to Exs.P17, Ex.P19, Ex.P20, Ex.P22, Ex.P23 and substantiated
their claim.
9. That the Tribunal failed to consider the claimant's side Sales
Deed in Exs.P8 to Exs.P14, it has elucidated the deceased agricultural
income.
10. The compensation granted under the other heads is very
meagre and the same is liable to be enhanced.
Therefore, they prayed to enhance the award amount by modifying the
order of the trial Court.
18. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
19. Since the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of the
judgment in M.C.O.P.Nos.80 to 83 of 2010 and 552 of 2011, issues, facts,
evidence and documents involved in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are same, they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by
this common judgment.
20. Now, this court has to decide the following points for
consideration :
(1) whether the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent act of the 1st respondent's (Transport
Corporation) bus driver or the driver of the Lancer
car was driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and caused the accident ?
(2) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.
80 of 2010 by the Tribunal is on the higher side?
(3) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.
81 of 2010 by the Tribunal on the higher side?
(4) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.
82 of 2010 by the Tribunal on the higher side?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
(5) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.
83 of 2010 by the Tribunal is on the higher side?
(6) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.
552 of 2011 by the Tribunal on the higher side?
(7) Whether the claimants in MCOP.No.552 of 2011
are entitled to enhanced compensation?
21. Exhibit P1 is the FIR registered in Crime No.534 of 2009
dated 20.10.2009 before the Ulundurpet Police Station lodged against the
driver Thiru.Vishnuchakkaravarthy of Lancer Car bearing Registration
No.TN-01–AC– 0148 filed by Saravanan, driver of Bus bearing
Registration No.TN 63 N 1292 belongs to the first respondent Transport
Corporation. The contents of the FIR shows that around 4.30 a.m. On
20.10.2009 the complainant drove the vehicle from Chennai to Trichy.
After crossing the tollgate at around 5.40 a.m., he turned the bus from
by-pass Road to enter Ulundurpet town. A Lancer Car with Registration
No.TN-01-AC-0148 coming from Trichy was also proceeded to Chennai
from Trichy the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner, and without controlling the speed dashed against the
Bus, as a result of which, Kannan, son of Kondal Raj, Thangaraj, son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Ramasamy, Saraswathi, wife of Thangaraj, Lavanya, wife of Premkumar,
Vishnu Chakravarthy, son of Kumar sustained injuries and died. Both the
car and bus were damaged. The dead bodies of the above persons were
kept in Government Hospital. Nobody sustained injury on the bus.
22. Ex.P2 is the postmortem certificate of the deceased
Vishnuchakkaravarthy issued by the Assistant Surgeon, Government
Hospital, Ulundurpet. The cause of death was mentioned that he would
have appear to died due to injury and shock. Ex.P3 is the legal heirship
certificate showing that Somu, father and Indurani, mother, were the legal
heirs of deceased Vishnuchakkaravarthy (claimants in MCOP.No.82 of
2010). Ex.P4 is the driving license issued to Vishnuchakkaravarthy,
which states that the driving license is valid up to 18.05.2011 which
means, on the date of the accident he had valid driving license. Ex.P5 is
the Postmortem certificate of deceased Thangaraj, issued by the Assistant
Surgeon, Government Hospital, Villupuram. The cause of death shows
that the deceased appears to have died of injury, shock and haemorrhage.
Ex.P6 is the Postmortem certificate of Tmt. Saraswati, aged about 60
years, issued by the Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,
Villupuram. The cause of death shows that death occurred due to shock.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Ex.P7 is the postmortem certificate of deceased Lavanya, aged about 25
years, issued by the Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,
Villupuram. The cause of death is due to head injury facial injury and
shock. Ex.P8 series is the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar,
Dindigul, showing that the claimants in MCOP.Nos.80, 81 and 83 of
2010 along with the deceased Saraswati and deceased, Lavanya are the
legal heirs of the late Thangaraj. In Ex.P8 another legal heirship
certificate dated 26.10.2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul shows that
the claimants in MCOP.Nos.80, 81 and 83 of 2010 along with deceased
Thangaraj and deceased Lavanya are the legal heirs of deceased
Saraswathi. Ex.P9 is the Bank passbook of Thiru. Ram Kishore Babu.
Ex.P12 is the copy of the joining letter issued to deceased Lavanya dated
17.11.2005 by her employer. Ex.P13 is the certificate issued by Tata
Consultancy Service with the annual salary details of the deceased
Lavanya. Ex.P14 is the inquest report of the deceased Lavanya. Ex.P16
is the rough sketch of the accident. Ex.P17 is the letter dated 1.7.2009
issued by the Manager of Indian Bank to the claimant's counsel regarding
the savings bank account details of Thiru Ram Kishore Babu. Ex.R1 is
the copy of the insurance policy for the Lancer Car bearing Registration
No.TN-01-AC-0148 issued in the name of the second respondent. Ex.R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
is the copy of the account statement of the second respondent in
Syndicate Bank, Chennai. Ex.R.3 is the delivery note dated 03.06.2009
issued by the fourth respondent Shankar to the 2nd respondent Balaraman.
Ex.R4 is the letter sent by the 2nd respondent to the Regional Transport
Office, Chennai stating that he had sold the vehicle to Shankar, Ashok
Nagar, Chennai. Ex.R5 is the copy of the certificate of posting filed by
the 2nd respondent. Ex.R6 is the insurance policy package for Lancer Car
bearing Registration No.TN-01-AC-0148. Ex.R7 is the Investigating
Report issued by the Investigator to the Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company, Chennai. Ex.R8 is the insurance policy for the
Lancer car bearing Registration No.TN-01–AC–0148 for the period from
21.10.2009 to 20.10.2010. Ex.R9 is the legal heir certificate issued by the
Tahsildar, Madurai South, to deceased Lavanya showing that her husband
Prem Kumar, is the only legal heir of late.Lavanya. Ex.R10 is the
delivery note issued by Abdul Cafoor to the 4th respondent, Sankaran.
Ex.R11 is the copy of the impleading petition filed by the 4th respondent
to implead Abdul Cafoor as a party to the claim petition. (some of the
other documents are not relevant to the case and hence, this Court not
mention the details of the other documents.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
23. Point No.1 : “Negligence”
To decide the negligence, we carefully scrutinized the
records. As per the claimants, in all the claim petition the negligence is
on the part of the driver of the Appellant /1st respondent Transport
Corporation.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Transport Corporation vehemently argued that the Tribunal failed note
that the appellant bus, after giving proper signals and confirming that
there was no vehicle movement on the other side of the road, entered the
Ulundurpet service Road from the highway, and it was only the driver of
the car who did not notice the appellant's bus entering into service road
came from North to South in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the rear portion of the bus.
25. The learned counsel further argued that the car dashed on
the rear portion of the bus itself clearly shows that the bus had already
entered into service Road after taking a turn from the highway and it was
only the car driver who failed to notice the bus and invited the accident.
The FIR was registered only against the driver of the Lancer Car bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Registration No.TN-01-AC-0148 before the Ulundurpet Police Station in
Crime No.534 of 2009 against the driver, Vishnuchakravarthy, who also
died in the accident. The complainant is the driver of the appellant's
Transport Corporation bus.
26. On the side of the claimants, one Balamurugan, an
independent witness was examined as PW5. During his chief
examination he stated that on the date of the accident i.e., on 20.10.2009
at about 7.00 hours, he was standing near the toll gate to go to
Ulundurpet Town. At about 8.40 hours the driver of the Lancer Car
bearing Registration No.TN-01–AC–0148 was driving the vehicle at a
normal speed, at that time, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus
bearing Registration No.TN-63–N–1292, drew the bus in a rash and
negligent manner, without signal and suddenly crossed the road.
Therefore, the Lancer car lost its balance and dashed against the
Transport Corporation bus and hence, the accident occurred. He was
cross-examined by the respondent. During cross examination he
admitted that both the drivers were responsible for the accident. Ex.P16
rough sketch indicates that the accident occurred at the crossroad on the
North to South NH-45 Trichy road leading to Chennai, the Lancer car
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
was coming from Trichy and proceeded to Chennai. Similarly, the
Transport Corporation bus came from Chennai and turned towards
Ulundurpet by-pass road, near the signal the car collided with the left
rear side of the bus.
27. The record reveals that all the occupants of the Car died
on the spot due to head injuries and other fatal injuries. Since none of
the occupants were alive, the real cause of the accident was not reported
by them.
28. Normally, a vehicle entering a curve from a straight road
would need to be more cautious, it is likely to move slower than a vehicle
already on the road, as navigating a curve requires reduced speed to
maintain control due to the forces acting on the bus while turning. A
vehicle entering the curve should always be more cautious and slow
down significantly to navigate the turn safely. If the bus driver properly
sounds the horn, it could alert the oncoming vehicle to reduce its speed,
as the driver may not anticipate the sudden entry of the bus. Therefore if
the driver of the bus while entering the curved road slowed down and
sounded the horn, the accident could not have occurred. Further, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
appellant Transport Corporation has failed to produce the Motor Vehicle
Inspector report to show the damages caused to the bus as well as the car.
29. The evidence of the eyewitness deposed that due to the
sudden turning of the bus, the driver of the Car was unable to maintain
control and collided with the bus.
30. The Mahazar Ex.P16 shows that the accident spot is on
the curve road and the Transport Corporation bus coming from Chennai
and about to enter the Ulundurpet by-pass Road. The Lancer car from
Trichy to Chennai collided with the left rear portion of Transport
Corporation bus and due to the above reason the accident occurred. As a
result all the occupants of the car lost their lives.
31. The Tribunal holds that based on the evidence of
eye-witness, the accident occurred due to the negligence act of the driver
of the Transport Corporation bus. We accept the Tribunal findings that
the accident occurred due to the negligence act of driver of the the
Transport corporation. At the same time, one cannot rule out that the
vehicle coming from a straight road should also be more careful and if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
there is a curve on the opposite side, the driver must slow down to cross
any vehicle is entering the curve road and sound horn. Therefore, we
hold that the driver of the Lancer car is also responsible for the
contributory negligence. We fix 75% negligence on the part of Transport
Corporation driver and 25% on the driver of the Lancer car. The Point
No.1 is answered accordingly.
32.Now we have to decide who is responsible to pay the
compensation amount for the negligence act of the driver of the Lancer
car.
33. As per records, the Lancer car was originally owned by
one Balaraman, the second respondent and the Car was insured with
United India Insurance Company Limited, who is the 3rd respondent
before the Tribunal.
34. The claimants in all the MCOP petitions claimed that the
original owner of the Lancer car is one Balaraman the 2nd respondent in
MCOP.Nos.80 to 83 of 2010 and 3rd respondent in MCOP.No.552 of
2011 and he along with Insurance Company viz., United India Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
and the Reliance General Insurance Company are liable to pay
compensation. The 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1, deposed that
he purchased the Lancer car and insured the car with United India
Insurance Company Limited till 03.10.2009. He further states that he
had purchased the car under hire purchase scheme from Syndicate Bank
but he had paid the entire loan amount to the Bank and obtained 'No Due
Certificate' on 03.06.2009. Thereafter, he sold the vehicle to one
Sankaran. He also produced delivery notes Ex.R3 and a letter sent by
him to the Regional Transport Authority with request to transfer the car
to present purchaser.
35. Thiru. Sankaran alleged to have purchased the car from
RW1 was examined as R.W.4. He stated that he is engaged in the
business of purchasing and selling of old car. He purchased the Lancer
car from Balaraman and sold it to one Abdul Cafoor. But the said the
Abdul Cafoor is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, R.W.4 filed
an impleading petition before the Tribunal to include the said purchaser
Thiru. Abdul Cafoor, as a party. But the said petition was returned by the
Court, questioning its maintainability. The petition filed by R.W.4 was
placed on records. R.W.4 in his cross examination admitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
thereafter, he has not taken any steps to implead the Abdul Cafoor as a
party.
36. The Insurance Company, who is the third respondent
before the Tribunal filed Ex.R7-investigation report by the detective
agent for Banks and Investigator Manager of United India Insurance
Company dated 22.12.2010, in which it was stated that the car was
purchased by Balaraman sold to Sankaran and inturn Sankaran sold to
Abdul Cafoor. The said Abdul Cafoor sold the property to Thangaraj,
who had travelled in the Car and died.
37. Though it was stated that the original owner sold the
vehicle to third parties, as per legal position, the original owner must
have legal title and the transfer must be registered with the appropriate
Motor Vehicle Authority. But the same was not done by the original
owner Balaraman. If the original owner has not taken any steps to
transfer the vehicle to the third party purchaser and the vehicle remains in
his name, he is legally responsible for any liability arising from accident,
insurance claim, or legal dispute involving the vehicle. The insurance
policy issued by the third respondent was marked as Ex.R1 which shows
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
that the period of insurance covered under the policy was from 4.10.2008
to midnight 3.10.2009. Another policy for the Lancer car was marked as
Ex.R8 which was issued by the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, Madurai, who is the 6th respondent before the Tribunal, for the
period from 21.10.2009 to 20.10.2010. The date of accident occurred on
20.10.2009. The Investigating Agency report of United India Insurance
Company shows that the Insurance coverage was issued on 21.10.2009
and it was also admitted by R.W.5 on behalf of Reliance Insurance
Company. But the policy was issued only on 21.10.2009.
38. The learned counsel for the Reliance General Insurance
Company relied upon the judgement in The Branch Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd., Dindigul Vs. Vijayalakshmi and others
reported in 2017(1) T NMAC 168 (DB) in which paragraphs Nos.7 and
19 are held as follows :
“7. PW1 is the wife of the deceased
Balakrishnan and she deposed that the accident
took place on 27.10.2010 and she was not aware of
the fact that the offending vehicle was insured on
the next day on 28.10.2010 and denied the
suggestion that there was no insurance coverage of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
the vehicle. PW2 is an eyewitness to the accident.
Ex.P5 is the crucial document and it is the
receipt/cover note a perusal of the same would
disclose that premium was collected in respect of
the offending vehicle and the cover note was issued
on 27.10.2010 at 2.51 p.m. RW2 is the
Administrative Officer of the appellant/second
respondent/insurance company and he denied the
suggestion that since the premium was collected
before the accident on 27.10.2010, which came into
force from that time and as such, they are liable to
pay compensation. Ex.R2 is the policy issued in the
name of the fifth respondent, namely
Thiru.G.Velmurugan and it came into force on
28.10.2010 and was in force from midnight of
28.10.2010 till midnight of 27.10.2011. Ex.R3 is the
insurance policy in the name of
Thiru.R.Sundarajan/sixth respondent and it came
into force from the midnight of 28.10.2010 till the
midnight of 27.10.2011 and thus, in the light of
Ex.R3 policy, it is the case of the
appellant/insurance company that since the policy
came into force only on the midnight of 28.10.2010
and whereas the accident took place at about 17.00
hours on 27.10.2010, they cannot be mulcted with
the liability to pay compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
xxx xxxx xxxxx
19. Therefore, it is to be held that coverage
commences from the time and date mentioned in the
Insurance policy as it is being a Special Contract and
admittedly, in the case on hand, the policy came to be
issued after the accident and so also the coverage and
as such, the appellant/insurance company cannot be
mulcted with the liability to pay compensation by
indemnifying the owner of the vehicle.”
Therefore it shows that on the date of the accident, the insurance policy
was not in force for the Lancer car.
39. We rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Appeal (Civil) No.1082 of 2008 reported in 2008 (3) SCC 748,
in T.O.Anthony versus Karvarnan and Others, it was held in paragraphs
Nos.6 and 7 are as follows:
“6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the
negligence on the part of two or more persons.
Where a person is injured as a result of negligence
on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said
that the person was injured on account of the
composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such
a case, each wrongdoer, is jointly and severally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
liable to the injured for payment of the entire
damages and the injured person has the choice of
proceeding against all or any of them. In such a
case, the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is
it necessary for the court to determine the extent of
liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the
other hand where a person suffers injury, partly
due to the negligence on the part of another person
or persons, and partly as a result of his negligence,
then the negligence of the part of the injured which
contributed to the accident is referred to as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty
of some negligence, his claim for damages is not
defeated merely because of the negligence on his
part but the damages recoverable by him in respect
of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.
7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved
in an accident, and one of the drivers claims
compensation from the other driver alleging
negligence, and the other driver denies negligence
or claims that the injured claimant himself was
negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent and if
so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
the accident and the extent of his responsibility,
that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where
the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there
be an automatic inference that the negligence was
50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The
Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of
contributory negligence of the appellant and
thereby avoided confusion between composite
negligence and contributory negligence. The High
Court has failed to correct the said error.”
40. Therefore, we fix the responsibility at 25% on the car
driver and 75% on the driver of the Transport Corporation. The
passengers not contributed to the act of negligence of the driver, we
considered them as innocent victims.
41. The vehicle was still standing in the name of registered
owner and no proper transfer was made by him. Even if the car was sold,
it was not effectively transferred. The owner did not claim that the
vehicle was used unauthorisedly by the driver, the driver hold proper
licence at the time of accident and hence, he is responsible for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
contributory negligence on the part of its driver.
42. Points Nos.2 and 5 :
MCOP Nos. 80, 82 and 83/2010, filed by Kavitha and
others. The claimants are the sisters of deceased Lavanya, and daughters
of deceased Thangaraj (father of the claimants) and Smt.Saraswathi
(mother of the claimants) filed the MCOP.Nos.80, 82 and 83 of 2010
claiming that they are the dependents of the deceased and entitled to
compensation.
43. As per the claimants, their father, Thangaraj who was
aged about 70 years stated to be doing real estate business at Dindigul
and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But they have not produced
any document to show the same. Likewise, they have stated that their
mother Saraswati was aged about 60 years, alleged that she has been
carrying on a textile business at Dindigul and earning a sum of Rs.6000/-
per month.
44. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that a sum
of Rs.2,43,000/- fixed as notional income for the deceased, Saraswati is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
on the higher side as the claimants failed to produce any document to
show her income. As per the claimants, their mother was doing a textile
business, but they have not produced any document to show her income.
Even if the mother of the claimants is assumed to be a homemaker, the
claimants are entitled to compensation.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgement
in Kirti and Another vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
reported in AIR 2021, Supreme Court, 353, the Court recognised that
the contribution of homemakers holds significant value and should be
acknowledged when determining the compensation.
46. The Court emphasised that the service rendered by
homemakers, such as managing household works, child care, and
supporting family members contribute substantially to the economic
condition of the family and the economy of the nation, even though these
activities are traditionally excluded from economic analyses. The
Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased Saraswathy at
Rs.27,000/- per annum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
47. Now we have to see whether the claimants proved that
they are dependent on the deceased Thangaraj and Saraswathy. There is
no dispute that they are all legal heirs, but for claiming compensation,
they must prove that they are dependent on the deceased and due to their
sudden demise deprived and liable for compensation. In this case, it is
proved that all the claimants were married and settled with their
husbands in various places. The cross-examination of PW2 Tmt.Kavita
is extracted hereunder :
“vdf;FjpUkdkhfp Foe;ijfs; ,Uf;fpwJ.
vd; fztu; tpahghuk; nra;J tUfpwhu;.
ehd; Ntiy vJTk; nra;atpy;iy. vdJ
fztu; khjk; &.5000> 6000 jhd;
rk;ghjpj;J tUfpwhu;. ehd; kD jhf;fy;
nra;jgpwF jpUr;rp thlif tPlb
; y;
jhd; ,Uf;fpNwd;. ehd; vd; fztu; khjk;
&.20000/-f;F Nky; rk;ghjpj;J tUfpwhu;
vd;Wk; tof;fpw;fhf khjk; &.5000> 6000
vd;W rk;ghjpj;J tUfpwhu; vd; ngha;ahf
nrhy;fpNwd; vd;why; rupay;y. ehd;; $Wk;
Nkw;gb tUkhdj;ij itj;J jpUr;rp
efhpy; thoKbahJ vd;why; rupay;y.
2Mk; kDjhuu; Rjh vdJ jq;if mtu;
vk;gpgpv]; Kbj;Jcs;shu;. mtUf;F
jpUkdkhfp ngq;fShupy; vk;b
gbj;JtUfpwhu;. mtuJ fztu; ,d;[pdpau;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
ngq;fShupy; jhd; Ntiyghu;f;fpwhu; vd;d
epWtdj;jpy; Ntiy ghu;f;fpwhu; mtu;
vt;tsT tUkhdk; <l;btUfpwhu; vd;gJk;
njupahJ. 3Mk; kDjhuu; tp[aNufh gp<
Kbj;J cs;shu;. mtUk; mtuJ fztUk;
ngq;fShupy; FbapUe;J tUfpwhu;fs;.
mtUila fztUk; ,d;[pdpau;. mtu;
vt;tsT rk;gsk; thq;Ffpwhu; vd;W
vdf;F njupahJ. 4Mk; kDjhuu; mfpyh
vk;gpgpv]; Kbj;J cs;shu;. mtUk;
mtuJfztUld; ,q;fpyhe;jpy; ,Uf;fpwhu;.
mfpyh gbj;Jf;nfhz;Nl Ntiyghu;f;fpwhh;.
mtUila fztUk; rk;ghjpf;fpwhu;.
mtu; ,q;fpyhe;jpy; vt;tsT rk;gsk;
thq;Ffpwhu; vd;W vdf;F njupahJ.”
Accidental compensation for the loss of income due to the death of
parents is typically granted to legal dependants. If the daughters are
married, well settled, and not financially dependent on the deceased
parent, their entitlement to compensation for loss of income is an issue.
However, they may still be entitled to the compensation under the head of
loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
48. Loss of estate refers to the financial loss, suffered by the
legal heirs of the deceased due to the death of a person. It includes the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
deceased’s income, savings, assets, and future earnings that would have
contributed to their families. The Tribunal taking into consideration of
age of deceased Thangaraj and Saraswati fixed their income at Rs.6,000/-
and Rs.3,000/- respectively and awarded compensation, which we hold
as proper.
49. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each for
the claimants for love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses and awarded the sum of Rs.6,65,000/- as compensation for the
death of Saraswati, and a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- for the death of deceased
Thangaraj.
50. For fixation of the future prospectus, loss of consortium,
and funeral expenses, certain guidelines were issued by the Apex Court
in the judgment rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, in which the
loss of love and affection/consortium, Rs.40,000/- to be awarded and for
funeral expenditure should be Rs.15,000/-, we feel it appropriate to
reduce to Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- for
the funeral expenditure, the Tribunal properly applied multiplier 9 for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
deceased Saraswati, applied multiplier 5 for deceased Thangaraj which is
proper. Therefore, we modify the award for deceased Saraswathy
(MCOP No.80 of 2010) as follows :
Loss of earning Rs.2,43,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,60,000/-
Funeral Expenditure Rs. 15,000/-
—————
Total award Rs.4,18,000/-
Less contributory negligence, 25% Rs.1,04,500/-
——————
Total Rs.3,13,500/-
——————
Compensation for Deceased Thangaraj (MCOP No.83 of 2010)
Loss of earning Rs.2,70,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,60,000/-
Funeral Expenditure Rs. 15,000/-
—————
Total award Rs.4,45,000/-
Less contributory negligence, 25% Rs.1,11,250/-
——————
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Total Rs.3,33,750/-
——————
In both awards, the claimants are entitled to equal share. Points Nos. 2
and 5 are answered accordingly
51. Point No.3:- (MCOP.No.81 of 2010)
As far as deceased Lavanya is concerned, the claimants are
her sisters and the fourth respondent is her husband and legal heir
certificate in his name. Taking into consideration the age, income, and
other aspects, the Tribunal fixed annual income of deceased Lavanya
after deduction of tax at Rs.4,19,967/- which is correct. But the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for loss of love and affection, and
another Rs.1,00,000/- for the fourth respondent also loss of marital
consortium is not proper.
52. As per the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, it was held that Rs.40,000/- to be
awarded under the head of love and affection/consortium, but the
Tribunal awarded excess compensation which needs modification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal expenditure, but it
should be 1/4th where the number of dependent families are 4 to 6, which
needs modification. We modify the amount as follows :
Loss of earning Rs.60,25,559
Loss of love and affection Rs. 2,00,000
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenditure Rs. 15,000/-
—————
Total award Rs.62,55,599/-
Less contributory negligence, 25% Rs.15,63,899/-
——————
Total Rs.46,91,700/-
——————
The Tribunal awarded 35% award in favour of the claimants who are
sisters and 65% in favour of the fourth respondent against which the
fourth respondent not filed any appeal, therefore, we also hold that
claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to a additional sum of Rs.5,47,365/- each
(totally a sum of Rs.21,89,460/-) towards compensation and fourth
respondent is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.40,66,139/- towards
compensation. The Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
53. Point No.4 :
As far as MCOP.No.82 of 2010 claimants are concerned,
they are the parents of the deceased Vishnuchakravarthy, who had driven
the Lancer car and caused the accident. The Tribunal fixed the income at
Rs.6,000/- which is proper but added the future prospectus at 50% which
is on the higher side. As per the guidelines of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, that if the deceased is self employed, the
future prospects of 40% are to be added, the driving licence shows his
date of birth as 14.03.1985 and therefore, he was 24 years old at the time
of the accident, the monthly income would be Rs.8,400/- as he was self-
employed and ½ to be deducted for his expenses and his monthly income
is Rs.4,200/-. The multiplier applicable is 18, therefore, the loss of
income would be Rs.4200 x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-.
Loss of earning Rs.9,07,200/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,20,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenditure Rs. 15,000/-
——————
Total Rs.10,57,200/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Less contributory negligence, 25% Rs.2,64,300/-
——————
Total award Rs.7,92,900/-
——————
Claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- each towards
compensation and the 3rd claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,57,200/-
towards compensation. The Point No.4 is answered accordingly.
54. Point Nos.6 & 7 :
As far as C.M.A.(MD)No.71 of 2021 is concerned, the
Transport Corporation objected to the Tribunal award of Rs.7,60,000/- as
highly excessive and not proper. Further stated that the award of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, contrary to the law laid
down by the Apex court in Pranay Sethi's case. The Tribunal fixed the
monthly income at Rs.4000/- by adding future prospectus 25% namely,
Rs.1000/- and the annual income fixed at Rs.60,000/-. Taking into
consideration the dependency deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses.
On the date of the accident, his age was 41 and applied a multiplier at 14.
Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- towards loss of
dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
of consortium, Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection for the
petitioners, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-
towards transport expenses.
55. The claimants are the wife and sons and mother of the
deceased Kannan and they have also filed cross objection in Cros.Obj.
(MD)No.5 of 2021 by stating that the Tribunal failed to consider that the
deceased was an ex-serviceman and received a pension and also
produced Exs.P15, P17, P19, P20, P22 and P23 to substantiate their
claim and also produced Exs.P8 to P14 to show his agricultural income
also argued that loss of income awarded at Rs.15,000/- is very meagre
and to be enhanced.
56. On perusal of records shows that the deceased Kannan
was also travelling in the Lancer car and died. The claimants are the wife
sons, and mother of the deceased. To support their claim, they produced a
legal heirship certificate of late. Kannan Ex.P4, in which the claimant's
name along with the deceased father’s name also found.
57. As per the claimants, late. Kannan receives a pension of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Rs.4500/- per month in the Indian Military Service as an ambulance
Assistant in the Indian Army. The 1st claimant, wife of the deceased was
examined as P.W.1. She also stated that he was engaged in real estate
business and earning income. She further stated that in respect of the
property gifted on 09.06.2004, he received income from the mango trees
situated therein and from the property additionally in a property
document dated 10.10.2007, there were Sapota (Sapodilla/chiku) trees
from which he derived income, he also took a land for lease in Nallur and
received income. From out-of-agricultural activities, a total sum of
Rs.1,11,600/- derived from the above. To substantiate the income they
had filed Exs.P8 to Exs.P14.
58. We have verified the documents, the settlement deed in
favour of late.Kannan confirms that his father gifted some property in his
favour. Ex.P9 to Ex.14 are sale deeds but it indicates that he had
purchased only plots, not agricultural land as stated in the petition.
Ex.P11, Ex.P15, and Ex.P17 are bank account stands in the name of late.
Kannan from 7.4.2009 to 31.3.2010, in which few cash deposits were
found in his bank accounts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
59. On the side of the claimants, one Karuppaiah has been
examined as P.W.2 and he stated that Kannan through mango fruits from
the lease land derived income of Rs.4,25,000/-, but he has not produced
any document to substantiate the same. Further, the claimants have not
produced any Adangal to show that late. Kannan was involved in
agricultural activities.
60. However, the bank statement shows some financial
transaction in his account to infers that, apart from his pension amount,
he was also involved in some other business and derived income.
Ex.P16 is a pension account, revealing that he received a pension from
the Indian Army and even after his death, it will go to his wife, therefore,
no loss of income in the pension. Therefore, we are of the view that his
monthly income to be increased from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/-, future
prospects would be 25% and hence, total monthly income would be
Rs.10,000/-. The dependants are 4, when the family members are 4 to 6,
1/4th deduction to be made towards personal expenses, we fix the annual
income at Rs.1,02,000/- and his date of birth mentioned in the driving
license as 10.05.1968, at the time of the accident he was aged about 41
years, multiplier to be used as 14, loss of income fixed at Rs.14,28,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
(Rs.1,02,000 x 14 = Rs.14,28,000/-)
61. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the
dependence towards loss of love and affection and also Rs.40,000/- for
loss of consortium. The compensation could not be allowed on both the
head of loss of love and affection and consortium at Rs.40,000/-.
Therefore for loss of consortium/loss of love and affection we fix a sum
of Rs.1,60,000/-. In other heads, we confirm the award passed by the
Tribunal.
Loss of dependency/earning Rs.14,28,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,60,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Transport Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
——————
Total award Rs.16,28,000/-
Less contributory negligence, 25% Rs.4,07,000/-
——————
Total Rs.12,21,000/-
——————
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced and
the Cross objection in Cros.Obj(MD)No.5 of 2021 is partly allowed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced. The C.M.A.(MD)No.71 of
2021 filed by the Transport Corporation is dismissed. The point Nos.6
and 7 are answered accordingly.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.
(MD)No.97 of 2019 is allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is
modified and the Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to pay a
sum of Rs.3,13,500/- and Balaraman/respondent No.5/owner of the
Lancer car is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,500/- to the respondents 1
to 4/claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount, less the amount if
already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.80/2010 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar,
within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,04,500/- each towards their share and are permitted to withdraw the
same, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
proportionate interest and costs, by filing an appropriate petition before
the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.
(MD)No.98 of 2019 is allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is
modified and the Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to pay a
sum of Rs.7,92,900/- and Balaraman/respondent No.4/owner of the
Lancer car is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,64,300/- to the respondents 1
to 3/claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount, less the amount if
already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.82/2010 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar,
within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum
of Rs.4,50,000/- each towards their share and respondent No.3/ claimant
No.3 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,57,200/- towards his share and the
claimants are permitted to withdraw the same, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
filing an appropriate petition before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.
(MD)No.99 of 2019 is allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is
modified and the Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to pay a
sum of Rs.3,33,750/- and Balaraman/respondent No.5/owner of the
Lancer car is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,250/- to the respondents
1 to 4/claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount, less the amount
if already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.83/2010 on the file of
the Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar,
within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,11,250/- each towards their share and are permitted to withdraw the
same, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
proportionate interest and costs, by filing an appropriate petition before
the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
65. C.M.A.(MD)No.1204 of 2018
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.
(MD)No.1204 of 2018 is allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is
modified and the Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to pay a
sum of Rs.46,91,700/- and Balaraman/respondent No.5/owner of the
Lancer car is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,63,899/- to the respondents 1
to 4 & 7/claimants & 4th respondent along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the
amount, less the amount if already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.
No.81/2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Virudhunagar, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are
entitled to a sum of Rs.5,47,365/- each (Rs.21,89,460/-) towards their
share and 7th respondent/4th respondent is entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,66,139/- towards his share and they are permitted to withdraw the
same, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
proportionate interest and costs, by filing an appropriate petition before
the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
66. C.M.A.(MD)No.71 of 2021 & Cros.Obj.(MD)No.5 of
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed and the award is modified as in cross objection. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
67. The Cross objection in Cros.Obj.(MD)No.5 of 2021 is
partly allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is modified and the
Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.12,21,000/- and Balaraman/7th respondent /owner of the Lancer car is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,07,000/- to the respondents 1 to 5/claimants
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit of the amount, less the amount if already deposited
to the credit of MCOP.No.552/2011 on the file of the Principal District
Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, within four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent/1st claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,28,000/- towards her
share and respondents 2 and 3 / claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- each (Rs.7,00,000/-) towards their share and respondents 4
& 5/claimants 4 and 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
(Rs.2,00,000/-) towards their share and the claimants 1, 2 and 4 and 5 are
permitted to withdraw the same, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, together with proportionate interest and costs, by filing an
appropriate petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to
deposit the share of the minor 3rd respondent/3rd claimant in a
nationalized bank until he attains majority. The 1st respondent herein,
who is the mother/guardian, is permitted to withdraw the interest amount
once in three months. No costs.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
12.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
To
1. The Principal District Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dindigul,
2.The Subordinate Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dindigul.
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019, 1204 of 2018, 71 of 2021
12.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:08:16 pm )
