Dismissed

The Managing Director v. S.Jeyarani

Madras HC17 Jul 2013CMA(MD)/1268/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The High Court upheld the award of approximately Rs. 6.92 lakh made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding that the quantum was not exorbitant and the finding of negligence was correct.

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 S.Jeyarani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.07.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶4

C.M.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013

¶5

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Division ) Limited, Trichy. .. Appellant / Respondent Vs. 1.S.Jeyarani 2.Minor Manohar 3.Minor Muhesh 4.Manickam ... Respondents / petitioners

¶6

(Minors 2 and 3 are represented through their mother and natural guardian Jeyarani/R1)

¶7

PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the award and decree, dated 02.04.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.431 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed as against the Award and Decree dated 02.04.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.431 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai by the appellant Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.

¶11

The respondents / claimants have filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and in the claim petition it is stated that on 31.10.2009 at about 7.15 a.m., the deceased Subramanian and one Chinnaponnu as pillion riders travelled in the motor cycle, bearing Reg.No.TN-45-H-2452, which was driven by one Ramasundram, on the Inungoor - Pudupatti Road from North to South and they nearing in front of Pudupatti Indira Colony Ayyasamy's Sugar Cane field. At that time, the appellant transport Corporation bus, bearing Reg.No.TN-45-N-2238 was driven by its driver from the opposite direction i.e., South to North, in a rash and negligent manner, without following the road traffic rules and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, the above said Subramanian has sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 28 years and he was a Mason and earned Rs.7500/- per month. The claimants are wife, children and father of the deceased and therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/from the appellant / respondent transport Corporation.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appellant / respondent transport Corporation has filed a counter in which it is stated on 31.10.2009 at about 7.15 a.m., when the

¶13

¶14

appellant transport Corporation bus, bearing Reg.No.TN-45-N-2238 was driven by its driver with very care and caution towards South to North with adhering the traffic rules and regulations, the deceased Subramanian and others coming in the motor cycle, bearing Reg.No.TN-45-H-2452 with over load and high speed and also in a rash and negligent manner without horn, from North to South and dashed against the transport Corporation bus and caused accident. Therefore, the deceased alone responsible for the accident and the driver of the appellant transport Corporation bus was not responsible for the accident. Further, the age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased should be proved by the claimants.

¶15

Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants examined three witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and on the side of the respondent transport Corporation, examined the driver of the appellant transport Corporation bus as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.

¶16

The Tribunal has discussed the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and finally held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant transport Corporation Bus. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 28 years, as per Ex.P2, Postmortem Certificate and fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/and deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased. But, the Tribunal has calculated the loss of income separately for claimants 1 to 3 and 4th claimant. With regard to claimants 1 to 3 are concerned, the Tribunal has fixed the loss of income as Rs.843.75 x 12 x 17 = Rs.1,72,125/- for each claimants and in so far as 4th claimant viz., the father of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted 843.75 x 12 x 5 = Rs.50,625/-. Apart from the above said amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for transportation and funeral expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards consortium to the first claimant; Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection to claimants 1 to 3 each and Rs.10,000/- for 4th claimant and totally, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved over the above said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant / respondent transport Corporation filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / respondent transport Corporation mainly contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abnormal and pointed out that the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.4500/-, is highly excessive and 1/4th deduction for personal and living expenses is not correct. The learned counsel further contended that the 4th claimant viz., the father of the deceased, is not depending on the deceased and therefore, is not entitled to any compensation and at the time of accident, the deceased and two other persons were travelled in the motor cycle and hence, the appellant / respondent transport Corporation, is not liable for the accident since only the deceased was responsible for the accident.

¶18

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants, on the side of the claimants examined P.W.2, eyewitness to the occurrence and also marked Ex.P1, copy of FIR, Ex.P2 Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P3 - Rough sketch and from the above said oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly proved that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligence driving of the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transport Corporation Bus. It is not averred in the counter and also not adduced any evidence that only for the reason, three persons were

¶19

¶20

tavelled in the motor cycle, the accident was occurred and the driver of the bus was not at all responsible for the accident. A careful perusal of Ex.P3, Rough Sketch filed by the claimant itself clearly proved that the appellant transport Corporation bus came on wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle. Therefore, only on the rash and negligence driving of the appellant transport Corporation bus driver the accident has occurred, as rightly held by the Tribunal and no interference needs in the above said finding.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that even though the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the method of calculation for loss of earning for claimants 1 to 3 and 4th claimant separately, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and therefore, no need to interfere with in the above said findings of the Tribunal.

¶22

With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 28 years on the basis of Ex.P2 Postmortem Certificate. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- is not excessive, considering the age, avocation and family circumstances of the deceased. Admittedly, the claimants are four in numbers including the father of the deceased. On the side of the respondents, it is not contented that the father of the deceased has independently earned and not depending on the deceased. Per contra, on the side of the claimants stated in the claim petition and also at the time of evidence that, the 4th claimant also depending on the deceased. In the above said circumstances, the 1/4th amount has correctly deducted by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses, as per the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court. If taken above said monthly income; 1/4 the deduction and 17 multiplier for calculation, the loss of income is less the amount fixed by the Tribunal. But the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in other heads also reasonable and not exorbitant. The Award passed by the Tribunal is not excessive, even though the method of calculation is wrong. Therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is to be confirmed and the appeal is to be dismissed.

¶23

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and Award and Decree, dated 02.04.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.431 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶26

\True copy\

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Kulithalai.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.S.Deenadhayalan, Advocate Sr.No.36374

¶31

mpk

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NA/06/09/2013/P3/3C

The Managing Director v. S.Jeyarani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. S.Jeyarani

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

The Managing Director Vs v.Ramasamy

The Managing Director Vs S.Chithiraisamy

The Manager Vs Velsamy @ Velusamy

Ghayathri Vs Arivazhagan

S.Ananthalakshmi (Age 33) Vs R.Narayanan (Age 38)

G.Veeraperumal, Vs M.Ponnusamy