Allowed

Arumugam v. the Managing Director

Madras HC8 Jul 2013CMA/1524/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an award in a motor accident claim. Justice Karnan found no error in the Tribunal's findings on negligence but modified the order to grant additional compensation of Rs. 1.16 lakh with interest due to the low quantum relative to the deceased's age and the number of claimants.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 1,16,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum to be deposited by the respondent within six weeks.

Arumugam Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1524 of 2006

1.Arumugam 2.Shanthi

3.Chokku

4.Elumalai

5.Banu 6.Vijaya (Minor aged 12 years),

¶10

rep. by her father and next friend Arumugam. ... Appellants /Petitioners Vs.

¶11

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai-2.

¶12

... Respondents/Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.4639 of 1999, on the file of V Judge, Fast Track Court, Madras, dated 07.02.2003.

¶14

The appellants / petitioners have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.4639 of 1999, on the file of V Judge, Fast Track Court, Madras.

¶15

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶16

The petitioners, who are the husband, daughters and son of the deceased Rani have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.4639 of 1999, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondent for the death of the said Rani in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 21.08.1999, at about 16.05 hours, when the deceased was in the process of boarding the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-01-2875 at the Chrompet bus stand, the conductor of the bus give the whistle without noticing the deceased trying to board the bus and the driver of the bus also started the bus in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the (deceased) was knocked down and sustained fatal

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

injuries and died in the hospital. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 48 years and was working as a coolie and earning Rs.2,100/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the respondent / Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai.

¶19

The respondent, in his counter has submitted that on 21.08.1999, the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2875, route No.PP70, was on its trip from Tambaram to Avadi. When the bus was proceeding from Chrompet bus stop, the deceased who had boarded the bus in order to go to Poonamalle, came to know that the bus was proceeding to Avadi, had suddenly tried to alight from the front entrance of the moving bus and had consequently fallen down and sustained injuries. The averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of the deceased, was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

¶20

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration in the case, viz.,

¶21

"(i) Whether the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2875?

¶22

(ii) Is the petitioners entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount?"

¶23

On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4, viz., Ex.P1-F.I.R., Ex.P2-death certificate, Ex.P3-legal-heirship certificate, Ex.P4death report. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

¶24

P.W.2, the eyewitness of the accident had adduced evidence that on 21.08.1999, he had boarded the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2875 at Tambaram and that he had seen the deceased board the bus at Chrompet. He deposed that as there was a heavy rush in the bus, the deceased was standing in the second step of the rear entrance of the bus and that due to the negligent driving of the bus, the deceased had fallen down and sustained injuries at the back of her head.

¶25

R.W.1, the driver of the respondent's bus had adduced evidence that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the (deceased) who had attempted to get down from the moving bus near Chrompet bus stand and in the process, she had fallen down and sustained injuries and died at the hospital.

¶26

The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, observed that the F.I.R. had been registered based on the complaint given by the

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

conductor of the bus. The averments in the F.I.R. are on similar lines to the evidence of R.W.1 regarding manner of accident. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1 and evidence of P.W.2, held that the deceased had also contributed negligence equally for the occurrence of the accident, as she had stood on the rear steps of the bus. Hence, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the contributory negligence of both the deceased and the driver of the respondent's bus and hence, held the respondent liable to pay 50% of compensation assessed by the them to the petitioners.

¶29

P.W.1, the fourth petitioner had adduced evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.50/- per day as a coolie and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He deposed that his father i.e., the petitioner is affected by paralysis and is unable to attend Court and that his sister is also a physically handicapped person and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P3.

¶30

The Tribunal, on taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month and on adopting a multiplier of '13', as was relevant to the age of the deceased (48 years), awarded a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- as compensation for loss of income (1,500 x 2/3 x 12 x 13); Rs.2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the petitioners 2 to 6 for loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs.1,68,000/-. The Tribunal, on deducting 50% of the compensation assessed for the contributory negligence of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.84,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondent to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within three months from the date of its order.

¶31

Not being satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred the present appeal.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.2,100/- and erred in calculating the monthly salary as Rs.1,500/- while assessment of compensation for loss of income. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as the accident took place at Chrompet bus stand. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the first petitioner is affected by paralysis and one of the daughters of the deceased is physically handicapped and as such, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and awarded the entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners as compensation. Hence, it was prayed for grant of additional compensation of Rs.1,16,000/-.

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

Even though the Court's notice was served on the respondents, no one had appeared. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass final orders.

¶35

On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side as the deceased was aged 48 years and the claimants are six in numbers. Now, the claimants have sought an additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,16,000/-, which is reasonable in the instant case. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal and directs the respondent to deposit the said additional compensation of Rs.1,16,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, within six weeks from the date of this order. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to all the claimants, including the sixth respondent / sixth claimant who has become a major during the pendency of the appeal, to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with proportionate interest thereon, as per the earlier ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4639 of 1999, on the file of V Judge, Fast Track Court, Madras, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶36

In the result, the above appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.4639 of 1999, on the file of V Judge, Fast Track Court, Madras, dated 07.02.2003 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

r n s To 1.The V Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Madras.

¶41

2.The Section officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶42

1 cc to Mr.M.Kother Adam,Advocate, SR.No.33992

¶43

C.M.A.No.1524 of 2006

¶44

ctk(co)pmk.11.6.2014

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Arumugam v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pasooran Vs T.S.Indirani Ammal

The Divisional Manager, Vs Arumugam

The Divisional Manager, Vs Minor Tamail Arasi

The Branch Manager Vs Mangammal

Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Arunachalam

P.Ayyasamy Vs a.Arunachalam