The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court upheld the finding of driver negligence and confirmed the compensation quantum.
CMA dismissed; corporation directed to deposit award amount with interest within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18-09-2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
C.M.A.No.2142 OF 2015
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam.
-vs-
1.M.Devi 2.Minor Roshan Selva
3.Minor Niranjana Sree,
Minors represented by their guardian
and next friend mother M.Devi ...Respondents/Petitioners
Appeal under section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the award, dated 18.02.2015, made in MCOP No.2565 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Manikumar,J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, and the quantum of compensation of Rs.27,07,312/-, with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till deposit, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.
bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, which came from behind, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, the motorcyclist Murugan sustained injuries and died on the spot. In this regard, a case in crime No.95 of 2013, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, has been registered on the file of Traffic (Rural) Police Station, Puducherry.
chargesheet, have been marked on the side of respondents/claimants. On the side of appellant corporation, driver of Transport Corporation bus, involved in the accident, examined himself as R.W.1, and refuted the manner of accident.
manner by its driver, dashed against the motorcycle, and, thus, the accident occurred. Though the Corporation has contended that it was the motorcyclist, who drove the vehicle in a zig zag manner, dashed against the right side of the bus, it is not corroborated. On the contra, the evidence of the respondents/claimants is duly supported by the version of P.W.2, eye-witness, and corroborated by Ex.P-1, FIR.
"The law is well settled that in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the evidence should not be scrutinised in a manner as is done in a civil suit or a criminal case. In a civil case the rule is preponderance of probability and in a criminal case the rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to consider these niceties in a matter of accident claim case inasmuch as it is summary enquiry. If there is some evidence to arrive at the finding that itself is sufficient. No nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Claims Tribunal in deciding a motor accident claim case."
11. In Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal RTC reported in 2009 (13) SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.”
12. Though Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant corporation contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing negligence on the driver of the corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-68-N-0474, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding. Rebuttal evidence adduced is not strong and concrete and corroborated, to enable this Court to reverse the finding of the Tribunal.
13. It is the well settled law that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and it would be suffice to consider, whether there is any preponderance of probability, as to the manner of accident, as detailed in the claim petition. Strict proof of evidence is not required. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence cannot be termed as perverse or it is not a case of no evidence. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the corporation bus is confirmed.
Having regard to the age of the deceased, 44 years, and following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121; Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others, reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 641, and Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2014 ACJ 1430, the Claims Tribunal has computed the loss of dependency :
Monthly income of the deceased as per income tax (2,19,020x1/12) Rs. 18,251/+ 30% for future prospects in 18251x30% Rs. 5,475/(18251 + 5475=23726/-) Monthly income comes to Rs. 23,726/The annual income comes to 23726x12 Rs. 2,84,712/1/3rd for (3 family members) deceased personal expenses Rs.284712x1/3=94904x2//3= 1898089/14 multiplier to be applied since age of the deceased is 44 : 189808x14 Rs. 26,57,312/16. Though the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the quantum of compensation on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased and made a provision for additon of income under head 'future prospects', going through the material on reocord and the award impugned, we find that there is no manifest illegality or irregularity, in accepting the contentions of the respondents as regards the age, avocation, income, and the future prospects of the deceased. The method adopted by the Claims Tribunal for arriving at the loss of dependency does not require any interference. Loss of dependency is quantified at Rs.26,57,312/-. That apart, the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and a lesser sum of Rs.10,000/-, each to the minor children, for loss of love and affection. Sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- awarded for funeral expenses and transport charges respectively is less. Claim has been made for Rs.50,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has failed to award a just and reasonable compensation, towards the head 'loss of love and affection'. At the time of claim, minor children are stated to be aged 7 and 5 years respectively. Quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be windfall or bonanza for the wife and minor children.
compenation of Rs.27,07,312/-, with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of claim till deposit, are confirmed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dixit
To
The Principal District Judge,
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuddalore.
1 CC to Mr.D.Venkatachalam, Advocate SR.No. 51189
C.M.A.No.2142/2015
PUR (CO)
PSI (19.10.2015)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of negligence against the bus driver requires interference given the lack of strong rebuttal evidence.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Saraswathi Debnath 1995 ACJ 980Referred¶31
Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory 2004 (4) LW 20Referred¶37
The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai v. Mary 2005 (5) CTC 515Referred¶37
Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others 2013 (1) TNMAC 641Referred¶40
Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others 2014 ACJ 1430Referred¶40
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam
M.Devi
Minor Roshan Selva
Minor Niranjana Sree
S.Manikumar
M.Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
