[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Managing Director,Tnstc ... vs A. Manoranjitham on 20 April, 2026
CMA No. 506 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
13.03.2026 20.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CMA No. 506 of 2016
and Cross Objection No.1 of 2023
CMA No. 506 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Division III, Ponnerikkarai,NH 4,
Karaipettai Post, Kancheepuram.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. A. Manoranjitham
W/o.S.Ashok, Kumar,
2. S.Ashok Kumar
S/o. Late Sivaperuman.
3. Minor A.Ajithkumar
S/o. S.Ashok Kumar.
Rep By Natural Guardian/
next friend father S.Ashok Kumar
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motors
Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 05.02.2015 made in
in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kanchipuram (District Court-II, Kanchipuram)
For Appellant(s): Mr. R. Balaji
For Respondent(s): Ms.A.Subadra for RR1 to 3
for Mr. UM. Ravichandran
R3 - Minor rep. by R2
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 506 of 2016
Cross Objection No.1 of 2023
1. A. Manoranjitham
W/o.S.Ashok, Kumar,
2. S.Ashok Kumar
S/o. Late Sivaperuman.
3. Minor A.Ajithkumar
S/o. S.Ashok Kumar.
Rep By Natural Guardian/
next friend father S.Ashok Kumar ..Appellant(s)
Vs
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Division III, Ponnerikkarai,NH 4,
Karaipettai Post,
Kancheepuram. ..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Cross Objection has been filed under under Order XLI Rule 22
of C.P.C., against the Judgement and Decree dated 05.02.2015 in in
M.C.O.P.No.447 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kanchipuram (District Court-II, Kanchipuram)
For Appellant(s) : Ms.A.Subadra for Appellants
for Mr. UM. Ravichandran
3rd Appellant - Minor rep. by 2nd Appellant
For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Balaji
COMMON JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the cross objection have
been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2015 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanchipuram (District Court-II,
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kanchipuram) in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 2013 by the respondent and the claimants
respectively.
2. The facts giving rise to the present lis is that the deceased, Mr.
Santhosh Kumar, aged about 20 years and employed as a Supervisor in a private
company at Sriperumbudur, met with a fatal road accident on 19.07.2013 .On
the said date, the deceased was riding his motorcycle from his residence
towards Sriperumbudur Bazaar, at a normal speed, observing all the necessary
traffic rules and regulations. At about 10.00 p.m., near Mayura Hotel on Gandhi
Road within, Sriperumbudur limits, a Corporation bus bearing Route No. 76C
registration number of which is unknown, proceeding from Kanchipuram to
Chennai, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from
behind, causing a fatal accident. A criminal case was registered against the
unidentified bus by Padalam Police Station in Crime No. 549 of 2013 under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim
petition in M.C.O.P. No. 447 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kancheepuram, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.
3. The 1st and 2nd petitioners in the claim petition are the parents of the
deceased, and the 3rd petitioner is the minor brother of the deceased, represented
by his father, the 2nd petitioner. The respondent is the Transport Corporation
operating Route No. 76C bus. A Claim has been made that the accident
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Route No.
76C bus. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
reported in 2011 ACJ 926, along with other judgments of various High Courts.
Its contended that since the said bus belongs to the respondent Corporation, it is
liable to compensate the loss suffered by the petitioners. On the contrary, the
respondent submitted that the petitioners failed to mention the registration
number of the vehicle, and even the FIR does not bear the registration number.
The respondent further maintained that there is no record of the said accident
and that it has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party.
4. In order to prove their respective contentions, both parties adduced oral
and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined three witnesses, namely,
the 1st petitioner examined as PW1, Mr. Duraimurugan, an eyewitness to the
accident examined as PW2, and Mr. Irudikesavan, Special Inspector of
Sriperumbudur who has been examined as PW3 and further had marked seven
documents as Exs. P1 to P7. On the other hand, the respondent examined Mr.
Veerabathiran, Senior Assistant of the respondent Corporation as RW1.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal, after hearing both sides and upon
perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident
was solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the respondent
Corporation’s bus bearing Route No. 76C. The Tribunal further applying the
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case to the instant
case had determined the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners as
Rs.5,50,000/-. Accordingly, by Award and decree dated 05.02.2015, the learned
Claims Tribunal held that the Respondent Corporation is liable to pay a
compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioners, together with interest at 7.5%
per annum from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
and decree, the respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
before this Court challenging the same and being not satisfied with the
quantum, the claimants have filed their cross objection
6. Heard both the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties in
both the Appeal and the Cross Objection
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the
respondent Transport Corporation in the claim petition is the appellant in the
present appeal. He contends that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening
liability on the appellant, without appreciating the fact that no conclusive
evidence was produced by the respondent to establish that the appellant’s
vehicle was involved in the accident. He further submits that there was no basis
to assume that the appellant’s vehicle had caused the accident, and that even on
applying the test of preponderance of probability, the respondent ought to have
proved the involvement of the appellant’s vehicle. However, the Tribunal relied
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
merely on certain judgments to fix negligence on the appellant.
8. It is contended that, except for marking the FIR, the respondent did
not produce any documentary evidence to prove negligence. Even the FIR
marked in evidence does not disclose the registration details of the vehicle
involved and merely mentions the route number of a bus, which is insufficient
to establish the involvement of the vehicle belonging to the appellant. Further
he would submit that PW2 who is alleged to be the eye witness, in his cross has
categorically admitted not to have witnessed the accident. He also submits that
the compensation awarded is highly disproportionate and contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of the above, it is
contended that the award of the learned Claims Tribunal suffers from illegality.
Therefore, he prays that this Court allow the present appeal and set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, who have also filed
Cross Objection, would submit that the vehicle involved in the accident is the
bus of the appellant corporation running as route 76C. As it was night the
registration number could not be noted as it was a hit and run case. The
respondent cannot wriggle out of their liability without showing a good cause.
On the question of quantum, it was contended that the learned Claims Tribunal
awarded a meagre sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as against the claim of the cross-
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants Rs.25,00,000/-. It was further submitted that the Tribunal ought to
have applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amrit
Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in 2012
(2) TN MAC 321 (SC), and ought to have adopted a multiplier of 18,
considering that the deceased was aged 18 years at the time of death. It is also
contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-, thereby awarding a lesser amount under the
head of loss of dependency.
10. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider future
prospects and did not award compensation under other heads such as loss of
love and affection, funeral expenses, and transport charges. The learned counsel
also submits that the Tribunal failed to take into account that the cross-
appellants were solely dependent on the income of the deceased and should
have, therefore should’ve awarded a higher compensation to the dependants. In
view of the above, it was prayed that this Court may be pleased to interfere with
the award dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and enhance
the compensation as sought for in the cross objection.
11. I have heard the rival submissions and have perused both the oral and
documentary evidences available on record.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. It is clear from the submissions advanced by both sides that the
significant issue to be determined by this Court is the question of liability.
Accordingly, the following issues arise for consideration before this Court.
(i)Whether it has been duly proved that the accident was
caused by the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation?
(ii) Whether the cross-appellants are entitled to enhancement
of the award as prayed for in the Cross Objection?
13. The primordial contention advanced by the appellant is that the
respondents have not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim
that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Route No. 76C bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. It is
significant to note, upon perusal of the deposition of PW2, one
Mr.R.Duraimurugan, who is the alleged eyewitness to the accident, that
although he initially deposed that he had witnessed the accident and stated that
it was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the said bus driver, he
contradicted himself during cross-examination. In the course of cross-
examination, he admitted that he had not actually witnessed the accident.
Further it had been noted that PW2 had also resiled from his earlier statement
that he had informed the police about the occurrence of the accident. Further, it
is to be noted that the respondents have not furnished the registration number of
the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident in their Claim petition and
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
neither it can found in the FIR copy. PW3, who is the Special Sub-Inspector of
Sriperumbudur, had also deposed that the registration number of the vehicle
which had alleged to have caused the accident cannot be traced. As far as Issue
No.1 is concerned, the above facts and circumstances clearly establishes that the
respondents have not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the accident
was caused by the driver of the Route No. 76C bus. Accordingly, this Court is
of the considered view that the respondents have failed to establish their claim
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus
belonging to the Transport Corporation
14. In view of the finding to the Issue No.1, holding that the accident has
not been proved to have taken place due to the involvement of the bus
belonging to the Transport Corporation Issue No.2, need not be answered.
15. In light of the above, the impugned Award and decree dated
05.02.2015, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 2013
is set aside. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed
and the Cross Objection stands dismissed. Consequently, all connected
miscellaneous stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
20.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Pbn
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Pbn
A Pre-delivery judgment made in
20.04.2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
