Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Amudha

Madras HC16 Jul 2013CMA/4094/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against a compensation decree awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased pedestrian killed in a road accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,61,000.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, and the Award and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are confirmed.

The Managing Director Vs Amudha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

The Managing Director, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Zone, Villupuram.

¶6

..Appellant/ Respondent

¶7

vs 1.Amutha 2.Minor Sambasivam 3.Minor Sathiyapriya ..Respondents/ Minors represented by Petitioner 1^st Guardian and next friend Amutha

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 dated 21.04.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Gingee.

¶9

For Respondent: Mr.M.R.Sivakumar for R1 to R3

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

On 25.01.2005 at about 01.00 a.m, when the deceased Angamuthu was walking on the Acherupakkam Koot road, the transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-32N-1234, driver at a high speed dashed against him. As a result, he sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim against the transport Corporation.

¶12

2.The transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the said bus had not been involved in the accident. Further, the F.I.R had been lodged as on after thought, in order to get wrongful gain. Further, the Motor Vehicle Inspector had not conducted inspection.

¶13

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

¶14

The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of deceased was not admitted.

¶15

3.After careful study of the averments of both the parties, the trial Court had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1234 and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

¶16

4.On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4 namely Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Post mortem report; Exs.P3 and P4-legal heir certificate and 2^nd claimants medical records showing his impaired vision. On the side of the respondent, no witness, no documents.

¶17

5.PW1 had adduced evidence that the deceased Angamuthu was her husband and aged about 42 years. She deposed that when he was proceeding on his bicycle, on 25.01.2005, on the Acherupakkam Koot road, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-32N-1234, driver at a high speed from Chennai towards Tindivanam had dashed against her husband. She deposed that the 2^nd and 3^rd claimants are the children of the deceased and that the deceased was a Bangle seller and earning Rs.4,500/- p.m.

¶18

6.RW1, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that the claimant had suddenly crossed before the bus and as such the accident had been caused by negligence of the claimant.

¶19

7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.3,61,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal.

¶20

8.The highly competent counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased rode his bicycle in a negligent manner and initiated the said accident and as such contributory negligence has to be attributed in the instant case. Further, the Trial Court had granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses without documentary proof. The Trial Court had assessed the compensation under the head of loss of earning, without income proof and granted a sum of Rs.3,36,000/which is erroneous. The F.I.R had been lodged against the driver of the bus, as an after thought.

¶21

9.The very competent counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that the F.I.R had been levelled against the driver of the offending bus, since he had committed the accident in a negligent manner. The Trial Court had not granted an adequate compensation. Under the relevant heads to the claimants. All the claimants are depending

¶22

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

¶23

upon the income of the deceased, who was the bread winner of the family. The 1^st claimant is a young widow and 2^nd and 3^rd claimants are school going minor children. The 2^nd claimant vision had been impaired. Now, the claimants are in a deserted condition as they have lost her bread winner of the family.

¶24

10.On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy on the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.3,61,000/- is not on the higher side, since the age of the deceased was only 42 years and he was the only breadwinner of the family. Further, the Tribunal had decided the negligence and liability on the basis of criminal records, which had been levelled against the driver of the bus. The learned counsel for the appellant informed this Court that the entire compensation amount with interest had already been deposited, as per this Courts earlier conditional order.

¶25

11.Now, all the claimants are at liberty to withdraw their apportioned share amount with added upon interest, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Gingee, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶26

12.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006, dated 21.04.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Gingee, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/Asst.Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

ub To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Gingee.

¶32

+1cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ,Advocate SR.No.36045

¶33

+1cc to Mr.M. R. Sivakumar,Advocate SR.No.36009 UG(CO) ka 28/01 C.M.A.No.4094 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 16.07.2013

¶34

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

The Managing Director v. Amudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Amudha

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

Tejaram Vs Baby

Tamil Nadu State Vs Pc Palaisamy

The Managing Director Vs N.Balammal

National Instt.of Technology Vs the Presiding Officer

V. Sundararaj Vs S. Murugavel

Thambidurai Vs Tamil Nadu State