Partly allowed

Tn State Transport Corpn.Ltd., v. Kanagavelli

Madras HC25 Feb 2021CMA/1225/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor vehicles accident appeal where the Madras High Court upheld the Transport Corporation's liability but modified the compensation quantum under loss of dependency and conventional heads while keeping the total award unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Compensation quantum modified under heads of loss of dependency and conventional heads; total award remains Rs. 7,75,000/- with interest; appeal partly allowed.

Tn State Transport Corpn.Ltd., Vs Kanagavelli — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.02.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶3

CMA.No.1225 of 2011

¶4

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division (Mettur Branch) 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem

¶5

...Appellant/2^nd Respondent ..vs..

¶6

1.Kanagavalli W/o.Balan

¶7

2.Hemalatha D/o.Balan

¶8

3.Sukumar S/o.Balan

¶9

4.Sundararajan S/o. Kandasamy

¶10

5.V.Thirumalaisamy S/o.Vellusamy

¶11

6.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., 2^nd Floor, 60-A, Mosuvana Street, EVN Road, Erode-9.

¶12

...Respondents/Petitioners 1,3,4

¶13

Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree dated 03.06.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The matter is heard through "Physical hearing".

¶16

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

¶17

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and dated 03.06.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.

¶18

2.The appellant is the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal . The respondents 1 to 3 have filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death occurred in the road accident that took place on 24.11.2008.

¶19

It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants that on 24.11.2008 at about 5.30 pm the deceased Balan drove the TATA Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN33-AJ-3323, at the time, the respondent corporation bus bearing Reg.No. TN30-N-0583 driven by its driver came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said TATA Ace Van. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased Balan and the cleaner were sustained grievous injuries and the Balan died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased Balan have filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The tribunal upon analysing the oral and documentary evidence has concluded that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent corporation bus and directed the respondent corporation to pay a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

¶20

Challenging the liability and quantum, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation has submitted that the tribunal without considering the evidence of RW1, Who deposed the negligence on the part of the deceased, has wrongly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant/transport corporation bus. The monthly income fixed by the tribunal at Rs.4000/- is without any basis and the total compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- awarded by the tribunal under various heads is excessive and liable to be interfered with.

¶22

On the other hand , the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 submitted that after examination of evidence and documents, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation bus and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,75,000/- under

¶23

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

¶24

various heads, which is fair and reasonable and does not require any modification by this Court.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1to 3/claimants and perused the document available on record.

¶26

Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to PW3 and marked eight documents ExA1 to A8. On side of the respondents RW1 was examined and marked one documents RW1.

¶27

From a perusal of the award, the driver of the bus was not examined to substantiate the evidence of RW1. Based on the evidence of the PW2/cleaner who was also injured in the said accident and the documents marked by the claimants Ex.A2 to Ex.A6 has concluded that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation bus and directed the appellant/transport corporation to pay the compensation amount. Thus, this Court confirms the negligence and liability as against the appellant/ transport corporation

¶28

As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was a driver, under the 3^rd respondent. The claimant have also marked the driving licence of the deceased Balan as Ex.A8 and there is no dispute with regard to the avocation of the deceased. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.12,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Based on the evidence of PW2/Owner of the TATA Ace vehicle, the tribunal has fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and applied 15 years multiplier and calculated the loss of dependancy at Rs.7,20,000/-. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma's case the proper multiplier for the age group between 40 and 45 is 14 years. Therefore, this Court by applying the above principles, modifies the compensation awarded under the head 'Loss of dependancy' at Rs.6,72,000/- .

¶29

Considering the age and avocation of the deceased, this Court is of the view that compensation awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads requires enhancement. Accordingly, the compensation under other heads are modified as follows;

¶30

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

¶31

Heads	Compensation awarded by the tribunal Rs.	Compensation modified by this Court Rs.
Loss of dependancy	7,20,000/-	6,72,000
Loss of Consortium to the wife/1^st respondent	20,000	23,000
Loss of Love and affection to the respondents 2 & 3	30,000	40,000
Funeral Expenses	5,000/-	15,000
Loss of Estate	....	15,000
Pain and suffering	...	10,000
Total	7,75,000/-	7,75,000/-

¶32

In view of the modification under various heads, the claimants are entitled compensation amount of Rs.7,75,000/along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the tribunal.

¶33

The appellant /transport corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest as awarded by the tribunal, less the amount already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation along with interest and costs as per the apportionment fixed by the tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.

¶34

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 03.06.2010 passed by the tribunal in M.C.O.P.No185 of 2009 is modified. No costs.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

The Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, (Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal) Erode.

¶43

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1 CC to Mr.D. Raghu, Advocate sr 11499. CMA.No.1225 of 2011

¶44

PP(CO) SP(22/12/2021)

¶45

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

Tn State Transport Corpn.Ltd., v. Kanagavelli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tn State Transport Corpn.Ltd., v. Kanagavelli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Tmt.Amirtham

The National Insurance Vs Minor Hariprakash

The National Insurance Vs Chandrasekaran

Chandra, Vs Mr. v.Govindaraj

Ragupahy Vs P.Saravanan

Karuppusamy(Died) Vs Gowri