Dismissed

The Managing Director, v. Parvathy (Age 50)

Madras HC8 Jul 2013CMA(MD)/1300/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded in a Motor Accident Claims Case. The High Court found the Tribunal's calculation of income loss and other heads just and reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the award.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

The Managing Director, Vs Parvathy (Age… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:08/07/2013

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶6

C.M.A.(MD).No.1300 of 2013

¶7

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bye-pass Road Madurai 10.

¶8

... Appellant/Respondent

¶9

¶10

Parvathy 2. C. Arunachalam ... Respondents/Claimants

¶11

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1631 of 2008 dated 23/8/2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Madurai.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1631 of 2008 by an order dated 23/8/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Madurai, the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, it is the respondent in the above said claim petition filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶15

Before the Tribunal, the respondents/claimants herein filed a claim petition for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and in the claim petition, it is stated that on 10/1/2008 at about 21.30 hours, at Tapakulam in front of Tamukkam maithanam bus stop, Madurai, when the deceased wanted to board the bus, without Conductor's whistle, the driver of the respondent Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN59N-1010, moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries on right knee and right hip and was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and he succumbed to the inuries on the same day. A criminal case is also registered as against the transport Corporation bus in Crime No.14 of 2008 under Section 304 A IPC. Age of the deceased Chandrasekaran was 58 years and he was computer job typing worker and earned Rs.5,000/- p.m., and claimants are wife and son of the deceased and claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the appellant Transport Corporation.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appellant transport Corporation filed a counter in which it is denied the manner of the accident alleged in the petition and it is

¶17

¶18

stated that on 10/1/2008, at about 9.15 hours, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus carrying passengers, took a trip from Madurai Mattuthavani bus stand to Arapalayam and drove the vehicle adhering the traffic rules and regulations and at 9.30 p.m., while the bus after alighting the passengers at Tamukkam ground, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus was waiting for the signal in the traffic. At that time, the deceased who was anticipating to board the bus was trying to step into the back foot board, the driver after getting green signal moved the bus and the deceased who was not able to board on running bus fell down and sustained injuries and hence the driver of the appellant is not responsible for the accident. Further, the compensation claimed in the petition is highly excessive and exorbitant.

¶19

Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined as P.ws.1 and 2 and 7 documents were marked viz., Exs.P.1 to P.7 and on the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, one witness was examined as R.W.1 but not filed any documents.

¶20

The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence and finally held that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant Transport Corporation bus driver. The appellant has not challenged the above said finding regarding negligence. Further, claimants side examined eye witness and also proved by documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the appellant Transport Corporation bus driver.

¶21

With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- and deducts Rs.2,000/- for personal and loving expenditure of the deceased and fixed Rs.3,000/- and considering the age of the deceased, multiplier '8' was adopted and awarded the compensation as follows:-

¶22

Loss of income	Rs.2,88,000/-
Loss of consortium for the first petitioner therein.	Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation charges	Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of Love and
affection	Rs. 10,000/-
	-------------
	Rs.3,23,000/- -------------

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged only the quantum of compensation and submitted that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is highly excessive and therefore, prayed for reduction of the same.

¶24

Admittedly, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased is 58 years. In the evidence it is stated that he was working as computer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ job typist and earned Rs.5,000/- p.m.

¶25

¶26

Considering the period of accident, the age of the deceased, this Court is of the view that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal and applied multiplier correct and hence the loss of income fixed by the Tribunal is not higher side. Appellant Transport Corporation not challenged the award passed on other heads. Therefore, the total award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶27

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.1631 of 2008, dated 23/8/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Madurai is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Mvs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

¶35

I Additional District Judge, Madurai.

¶36

+1 cc to mr.M.Prakesh, Advocate Sr.No.34118.

¶37

C.M.A.(MD).No.1300 of 2013

¶38

DATED:08.07.2013

¶39

3P/3C RPB 26.08.2013

¶40

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

The Managing Director, v. Parvathy (Age 50)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. Parvathy (Age 50)

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

Brindha Rani, Vs C.Rajkumar

M.P. Anitha Vs G. Muthukumar

M. Kamila Fathima Zeaudeen Vs S. Zeaudeen, C-199,38TH St

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Karuppasamy (Age 45)

The Managing Director, Vs Esakki Muthu (Age 58)

K. Vadivel Vs Nil