Dismissed

Managing Director, v. v.E.Munusamy

Madras HC10 Jun 2019CMA/1494/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electric Transport Corporation appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of a passenger. The High Court held that the technical findings on negligence and the compensation quantum did not require interference and dismissed the appeal due to lack of merit and the long delay.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. The Appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest and costs within four weeks.

Managing Director, Vs v.E.Munusamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1494 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.9846 of 2003

¶6

The Managing Director,

¶7

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Div.II) Ltd., Dharmapuri ... Appellant /Respondent (Cause title accepted vide order dated 04.07.2003 made in CMP No.8450/2003) ..vs.. 1. V.E.Munusamy 2. Sivakami Ammal ... Respondents /Petitioners

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2001 made in MCOP No.120 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. S.N.Vasanthakumar For Respondents: V.Raghavachari. J U D G M E N T

¶10

As against the claim made for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, there is an award for a sum of Rs.1,40,500/-. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as disproportionate, the Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal.

¶11

The legal representatives of the deceased V.E.Singaraj in the capacity as parents (V.E.Munusami, aged 56 and Sivagami Ammal, aged 49) of the deceased have filed the claim petition. The Tribunal has quantified the compensation with the following breakup details:-

¶12

Loss of dependency Rs.1,36,000.00 - Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 - Damage to cloths Rs. 2,500.00 -----------------Rs.1,40,500.00 ------------------

¶13

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

¶14

The accident is stated to have taken place, while the deceased was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, while he was travelling as passenger.

¶15

3.1. It is the case of the claimants / respondents that since the bus was overloaded, the deceased and others were standing in the footboard and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's bus, the deceased fell down from the bus and succumbed to the injuries.

¶16

3.2. But the case of the appellant / Transport Corporation was that the deceased was standing at the footboard of the bus, and only because of his negligence, he fell down and invited the accident.

¶17

The Tribunal, after consideration of the materials, came to the conclusion that it is only the bus driver, who was negligent in causing the accident and thus, the appellant is liable to compensate the claimants.

¶18

This finding does not require any interference as it is based on oral and documentary evidence adduced.

¶19

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, fixing the annual income at Rs.12,000/-, deducting 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses, adopting the multiplier of '17', the loss of dependency has been calculated at Rs.1,36,000/-. Awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to clothes, the total compensation has been quantified at Rs.1,40,500/-.

¶20

6.1. This award is under challenge by the Transport Corporation on the ground that the award is excessive.

¶21

It is relevant to point out that the future prospective increase in income and loss of love and affection to the parents have not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. Further, for all the thirty days, the income has not been calculated by the Tribunal. If on those counts the amounts are awarded, then the compensation amount arrived at by the Tribunal would be less and not more.

¶22

Added to the above, the accident, in this case, had taken place in the year 1994 and the appeal is heard on merits in the year 2019. Thus, far, there is no appeal by the claimants. Under the given set of circumstances, it may not be appropriate to enhance or reduce the quantum of compensation.

¶23

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

¶24

Therefore, the Appeal has no merits and thus, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.

¶25

The Transport Corporation / appellant herein shall deposit the entire compensation amount, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, along with interests and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The ratio of apportionment shall be as ordered by the Claims Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the Claims Tribunal shall pay the compensation to the RTGS Accounts of the claimants.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srk
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional Special Judge,
Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai 104.
+1cc to M/s.S.V.Vasanthakumar, Advocate Sr.46118

¶27

C.M.A.No.1494 of 2003 & C.M.P.No.9846 of 2003

¶28

cp[co] srg 06/11/2019

¶29

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

Managing Director, v. v.E.Munusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, v. v.E.Munusamy

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

United India Insurance Vs Tmt Dhana Baggiyam

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M.Raji

The National Insurance Co. Vs G.Ramanujam

Tn State Transport Corpn. Vs Smt.Ponnukannu

Divisional Manager Vs Sivalingam

United India Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Mani