Partly allowed

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. Kamala

Madras HC20 Nov 2023CMA(MD)/257/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court re-assessed the compensation awarded in a fatal road accident involving a State Transport Corporation bus. While confirming the corporation's negligence, the Court reduced the total compensation due to mathematical errors and adjusted heads of loss.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.59,10,036/- along with 7.5% interest. Appellant directed to pay balance amount within eight weeks.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Kamala — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

CMA(MD) No.257 of 2019 and CMP(MD) No.3504 of 2019

¶7

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager Pudukottai District

¶8

...appellant/ respondent No.1

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Kamala

¶11

2.Janani

¶12

3.Sidharthgautham

¶13

4.M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.1A Thanjavur Main Road Thiruverambur Trichy 13. ... Respondents 1 to 4/

¶14

petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and R1

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree order dated 27.01.2017 in MCOP No.54 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶16

1/10

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.AVB.Krishnakanth For Respondents : Mr.D.Boopal for R1 to R3 Mr.A.Ilango fr R4

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 27.01.2017 made in MCOP No.54 of 2013 by the Motor

¶23

Accident Claims Tribunal,Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶24

The State Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Selvaraj. They filed a claim petition before the tribunal in MCOP No.54/2013 claiming compensation for the death of Selvaraj in a road transport accident, that was occurred on 20.05.2009.

¶25

In the said accident, when the deceased was driving the car bearing Registration No.TN45 AY 1960 in Pudukottai – Aranthangi Road, near Sunaiyakkadu Pirivu, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 55

¶26

2/10

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶29

N 0374 belong to the appellant corporation, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the car, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

¶30

Before the tribunal, both the transport corporation as well as

¶31

the second respondent, who is the insurer of the car, filed a counter statement. The first respondent in the counter statement stated that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The car dashed against the parked bus on the left hand side of the road and also disputed the claim of compensation.

¶32

Before the trial Court, during trial, the widow of the deceased

¶33

was examined as P.W.1 and son in law of the deceased, who had travelled along with the deceased in the said car also sustained injuries, was examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 is the colleague of the deceased in the BHEL Company.

¶34

On the side of the respondent transport corporation, they examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. The Manager, who had

¶35

3/10

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶38

conducted the spot inspection and conducted domestic enquiry against R.W.1 is examined as R.W.2 and Sub Inspectors of Police, who had investigated the case, were examined as R.W.3 and R.W.4. On the side of the claimants, they have exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. On the side of the respondents, Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 were marked. The Court has marked Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 relating to pay particulars of the deceased Selvaraj and the CD file in connection with Crime No.281/2009 on the file of the Aranthangi Police Station.

¶39

Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, R.W1 and accordingly held that the transport corporation is liable to pay the compensation and exonerated the insurance company of the car and hence, the appeal by the transport corporation.

¶40

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

¶41

4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶43

It is brought to our notice that P.W.2, who was examined as an occurrence witness, viz., Madhavan, has filed a claim petition and compensation has been awarded by the tribunal. As against the said award passed by the tribunal, the transport corporation has filed CMA (MD) No.243/2021 on the point of quantum and negligence. By judgment dated 08.03.2021, the learned Judge of this Court has held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus and also confirmed the quantum.

¶44

The learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation would contend that on the point of negligence and quantum, the award passed by the tribunal needs to be interfered with.

¶45

It is pertinent to note that considering the evidence of P.W.2 – Madhavan, coupled with Ex.R5 and R6, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the transport corporation, viz., R.W.1. Our attention was drawn to the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the bus. Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked on his side. After perusing the chief and cross examination of the driver of the bus -

¶46

5/10

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶49

R.W.1, we find that his version is inconsistence with regard to the manner of the accident and taking into consideration the fact that arising out of the very same accident, in the appeal filed by P.W.2-injured witness, the learned Judge of this Court was of the view that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. After considering the oral evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P1 – FIR and Ex.P14 - charge sheet coupled with the evidence of R.Ws.3 and 4 – investigating officers, we find that the finding rendered by the tribunal do not warrant interference.

¶50

Moreover, after perusing the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the bus and his chief and cross-examinations, it appears to be a selfsaving statement in order to escape from the criminal proceedings and hence, finding of the tribunal that the accident had taken place on the part of the driver of the bus is hereby confirmed.

¶51

On the point of quantum, as per Ex.P12, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2, the salary of the deceased is fixed at Rs.56,768/-; after deducing 1/3^rd ie., Rs.18,922/-, the net salary is rounded off to Rs.37,846/-

¶52

6/10

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶55

(Rs.56768-18922). As per Ex.P7, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 53 and hence, we find that as per the decision in Pranoy Sethi, only 15% has to be added ie., Rs.3784615/100=Rs.5,677 and according to the decision in Sarla Varma, the multiplier would be '11'. Accordingly, the pecuniary loss sustained by the family of the deceased is re-assessed at Rs.57,45,036/- (37846+567711*12).

¶56

With regard to funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, transport expenses Rs.15,000/-; for loss of love and affection for the respondents 2 and 3, it is calculated at Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/-; for loss of consortium to the first respondent - Rs.40,000/- and for loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- would be just and proper. Thus, the award of compensation is reduced from Rs.78,18,508/- to Rs.59,10,036/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand ten thousand and thirty six only)

¶57

In fine, the award of the tribunal is reduced from Rs.78,18,508/- (Rupees seventy eight lakhs eighteen thousand five hundred and eight only) to Rs.59,100,36.00./- (Rupees fifty nine thousand ten thousand and thirty six only) as follows:

¶58

7/10

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶61

Heads	Awarded by the tribunal (Rs.)	Modified/ reduced	Compensation
Loss of dependency and future prospects	74,93,508	(reduced)	57,45,036.00
Loss of consortium to the 1^strespondent	1,00,000	(reduced)	40,000
Loss of estate	-	Granted	15,000
Funeral expenses and transportation	25,000	(enhanced)	30,000
Loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 and 3	2,00,000	Reduced	80,000.00 (2 x 40,000)
Total	78,18,508	(reduced)	59,10,036.00

¶62

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:

¶63

(i) The respondents/claimants 1 to 3 are entitled for compensation at Rs.59,10,036/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs ten thousand and thirty six only) along with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶64

(ii) The appellant transport corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any;

¶65

8/10

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶68

(iii) On such deposit being made, the claimants/respondents 1 to

¶69

3 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the

¶70

tribunal with accrued interest and costs.

¶71

No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶72

(T.K.R.,J.) (P.B.B.,J.) 20.11.2023

¶73

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR

¶74

¶75

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶76

9/10

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

C.M.A.(MD).No.257 of 2019

¶79

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J. AND P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶80

¶81

CMA(MD) No.257 of 2019

¶82

20.11.2023

¶83

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. Kamala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. Kamala

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

Mr.C.Rajasekar Vs Mrs.Muthumeena

Veerammal, Vs M.Murugalakshmi

Veerammal, Vs M. Murugalakshmi

V.Krishnakumar, Vs P.R.Suganya

Managing Director Vs Jhansirani

Oomman Babu Vs Sadasivan Thambi (Died)