Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Palani

Madras HC16 Apr 2021CMA/3775/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court held that the appellant failed to produce evidence proving the deceased's negligence or providing an accident sketch to substantiate a claim of contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed with no costs.

The Managing Director Vs Palani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.04.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶4

C.M.A.No.3775 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.21711 of 2019

¶5

The Managing Director,
KSRTC, K.H.Road,

¶6

Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 027.

¶7

1.Palani 2.Kanda Swamy

¶8

3.Devaraj

¶9

4.Saravana

¶10

5.Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents

¶11

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order
dated 25.10.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2016 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge) at Hosur.

¶12

For Appellant: Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
For Respondents: Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in this
appeal. It is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree
dated 25.10.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2016 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge) at Hosur.

¶15

2.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,92,500/- as
compensation to the claimants under the following heads:

¶16

`Loss of`	`dependency`	`Rs.11,70,000/-`
`Loss of`	`love and affection`	`Rs. 50,000/-`
`Transpo`	`rtation`	`Rs. 10,000/-`
`Funeral`	`Expenses`	`Rs. 15,000/-`
`Loss of`	`estate`	`Rs. 15,000/-`
`Loss of`	`Future prospects`	`Rs. 2,92,500/-`
`Loss of`	`consortium`	`Rs. 40,000/-`
`Total`		`Rs.15,92,500/-`

¶17

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

¶18

3.The liability fastened on the appellant is contested on
the ground that the deceased was negligent and was responsible
for the accident and death and therefore the Tribunal ought to
have reduced the compensation on account of the contributory
negligence of the deceased and awarded lesser compensation to
the respondents/claimants. It is further submitted that the
deceased was aged about 49 years and other claimants apart from
her husband were not minors and therefore cannot be said to be
her dependents. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have
deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the
deceased and therefore prays for allowing this appeal to that
extent.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal was well-reasoned and requires no interference.

¶20

5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
respondents.

¶21

6.In my view, the Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion
while awarding the compensation. It has awarded a Just
compensation. Neither the appellant nor the respondents have
filed any documents to substantiate the manner in which the
accident had taken place. Ex.P1-FIR was lodged against
the driver of the bus. It was incumbent on the part of the
appellant/State Transport Corporation have to produced the
accident sketch and eye witnesses inorder to make out a case for
contributory negligence. As neither the appellant nor the
respondents have produced any documents to substantiate the
same. The finding of facts determined by the Tribuanl cannot be
therefore disturbed. Under these circumstances, the appeal
filed by the appellant/state Transport Corporation is liable to
be dismissed.

¶22

7.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

jas

¶28

To:

¶29

1.The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

¶30

 (Additional District Judge) at Hosur.

¶31

2.The V.R.Section, Madras High Court.

¶32

+1CC to M/s.T.Thiyagarajan, Advocate, SR.No. 23232
+1CC to M/s.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, SR.No. 23077

¶33

C.M.A.No.3775 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.21711 of 2019

¶34

PMK(CO)
B.VC (17/09/2021)

¶35

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

The Managing Director v. Palani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Palani

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

P.Selvam Vs N.Kasirajan

Suresh Vs Jamaludeen

M.Govindaraj Vs D.Murugan

Ashok Kumar B.Chowatia Vs Joint Commissioner of Income tax

M/s.Palghat Credit Corporation Vs The Principal Commissioner of

P.Muthu Vs C.Sadasivan