Dismissed

The Mg.Director, v. Munirathnam Naidu

Madras HC13 Jun 2019CMA/1599/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Transport Corporation against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 1,03,300. The Court upheld the finding of driver negligence and deemed the compensation quantum just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit entire compensation amount, interest, and costs within four weeks. Tribunal to transfer funds to claimant within one week thereafter.

The Mg.Director, Vs Munirathnam Naidu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1599 of 2003

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division III) Ltd., Kancheepuram.

¶7

(Formerly known as Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Transport Corporation, Kancheepuram)

¶8

(Cause title accepted vide order dated 16.06.2003 made in CMP.No.7256/03) ... Appellant/2^nd Respondent ..vs.. 1. Munirathinam Naidu ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. K.Velu (Given Up) ... Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2002 and made in MCOP.No.70 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court) Kancheepuram.

¶10

The appellant Transport Corporation has filed this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court) Kancheepuram, in MCOP.No.70 of 1997.

¶11

2.The case in brief is as follows:

¶12

On the fateful day, i.e., on 22.10.1995 at about 6.30 p.m., one Lakshmi was travelling as a passenger in the appellant Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.TN23-N-0351. When she was stepping down the bus at

¶13

Kanakamma Chathiram, the driver of the vehicle, without noticing the same, started the bus. Due to the same, the said passenger fell down from the bus and the wheel of the vehicle ran over her right leg. Immediately, she was admitted to Thirutani Government Hospital, where she died despite treatment. Stating that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus, the husband of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials and evidence available on record, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,03,300/- with interest at 9%pa from the date of claim petition. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without considering the evidence of RW1/driver of the bus, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the entire contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The learned counsel also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.

¶15

4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

5.Though this appeal was admitted way back in the year 2003, the appellant has not taken proper steps to serve papers on the other side even at this length of time. However, due to paucity of time, this Court is inclined to proceed with this appeal on merits.

¶17

6.On a perusal of the award, it could be seen that P.W.2/eye witness to the occurrence, in his evidence has stated that on 22.10.1995, when he was standing near the Police Station at Kanakamma Chathiram Bazaar, a bus bearing Route No.97C was coming from Tiruttani to Chennai and the deceased was trying to get down from the bus and without noticing the same, the driver of the bus started moving and due to the same, the deceased fell down and the backside wheel of the bus ran over the leg of the deceased. The testimony of P.W.2 was corroborated by Ex.P1 First Information Report, which was lodged by the deceased. Though the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, according to whom, the deceased herself fell down and invited the accident, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate his evidence. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident had taken place, due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus, which finding this Court is not inclined to interfere.

¶18

7.As regards the quantum of compensation, in the absence of any evidence as to the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the annual income at Rs.5,400/- (Rs.450 x 12) and adopted the multiplier of 17 by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taking her age as 30 years and quantified the compensation

¶19

towards loss of income to her family at Rs.91,800/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,500/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards Transport Expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, respectively. This Court is of the considered view that the quantum so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and reasonable as the same is based on the materials and evidence adduced by the first respondent/claimant and hence, the same need not be interfered.

¶20

8.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with interest and costs, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the same to the bank account of the first respondent/claimant, within a period of one week thereafter.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vv/rk
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Fast Track Court) Kancheepuram.

¶22

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai 104.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate SR.No.47749

¶24

C.M.A.No.1599 of 2003

¶25

PVS(CO) GMY(17/08/2020)

¶26

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

The Mg.Director, v. Munirathnam Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Mg.Director, v. Munirathnam Naidu

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 Ravichandran

The Managing Director Vs K.Balasubramaniam

The Managing Director Vs P.Velu

The Managing Director Vs N. Pandurangan

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Loganathan

Ramalingam, Vs S.Karthi