Dismissed

The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Villupuram, v. Renuka

Madras HC19 Sept 2019CMA/314/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant Transport Corporation filed a CMA challenging the Tribunal's compensation award for a motor accident claim. The Court noted the appellant raised an objection regarding the multiplier used but observed that interested claimants did not challenge the award. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are upheld.

The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

CMA.No.314 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. Renuka 2. Minor Manikandan 3. Minor Mahalakshmi Petitioners 2 and 3 are minors rep. by their mother Renuka. ... Respondents/Petitioners

¶7

Prayer This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 14.03.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.337 of 2012 by the Additional District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondents : No appearance

¶9

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, the respondent in MCOP No.337 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur has filed the present appeal.

¶10

The respondents/claimants filed the above said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Senthilvel, husband of the first claimant and father of the 2nd and 3rd claimants in a road accident that took place on 16.09.2010. The case of the claimants is that when the deceased Senthilvel was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-61-2362 on Trichy-Chidambaram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Main Road, a speeding bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-

¶11

2799, belonging to the appellant, hit the two wheeler, as a result of which he was thrown out of his vehicle and sustained injuries all over his body and died on the spot. According to the claimants the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant was the cause of accident and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to them.

¶12

The Additional District Judge/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, after analysing the evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,61,400/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. to the claimants. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

¶13

Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal while calculating loss of dependency, instead of adopting multiplier '14 ' , had applied multiplier ' 15'. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal got to be scaled down.

¶14

A perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal shows that though the Tribunal adopted multiplier '15' instead of '14', while calculating loss of dependency, no amount was awarded towards " Future Prospects" . Further more, the accident took place in the year 2010 and the Tribunal after taking into account the legal principles of law, which were in vogue at the time of passing of orders had awarded a sum of Rs.6,61,400/-. It is pertinent to point out that the claimants have not filed any cross objection or appeal against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Even in this appeal, they did not enter appearance. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal at this stage.

¶15

In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The orders dated 14.03.2013 passed in MCOP No.337/2012 by the Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur is upheld. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶18

//True copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ariyalur.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.S.Sairaman, Advocate SR.No.80627

CMA.No.314 of 2014

CP(CO)

GMY(15/06/2020)

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

The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Villupuram, v. Renuka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Villupuram, v. Renuka

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

G.Mohan Vs G.Periyasamy

K.Sekar Vs a.Rajendran

The Divisional Manager Vs Mr.Sabir

The Managing Director, Tnstc., Erode Vs M. Sidhaiyan

K.N. Theerthamalai@Babu Vs Varadhan@Varadaraj

R. Arun Vs K. Nandagopal