Allowed

Managing Director v. Jhansirani

Madras HC20 Nov 2023CMA(MD)/624/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding on negligence and compensation quantum. The appeal was dismissed, and the original award was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. Award dated 24.07.2019 confirmed. Appellant directed to deposit balance amount with interest and costs within eight weeks.

Managing Director Vs Jhansirani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶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

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6509 of 2020 and 11922 of 2023

¶9

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi ... Appellant/Respondent

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.Jhansirani 2.Minor Asitha 3.Rakku Nambu 4.Muniyandi ... Respondents / Claimants

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order passed in MCOP.No.84 of 2018 on the file of the MACT (Principal District and Sessions Court), Ramanathapuram, dated 24.07.2019.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondents : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari

¶14

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

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]

¶19

The Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. Challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2018 dated 24.07.2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal on the ground of negligence and quantum.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶21

The respondents 1 to 4/claim petitioners have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2018 seeking compensation for the death of the husband of the first claim petitioner, namely, Namburamalingam, who died on 04.12.2017 in the road accident.

¶22

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

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶24

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶25

Before the Tribunal, the first claim petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and

¶26

the occurrence witness was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were marked.

¶27

The Transport Corporation filed a counter statement disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and also claimed that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet and during the trial, the conductor was examined as R.W.1, Subramani and no document was marked.

¶28

Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come

¶29

to the conclusion that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not wearing the helmet and also held that he is a contributory to the accident at 15% and 85% negligence is fixed on the part of the driver of the bus. Based upon the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was an approved Electrical Contractor and was doing work at Agriculture University and accordingly, awarded the compensation and hence, the appeal.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

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

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶33

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶34

After perusing the version of P.W.2-Muniyandi, the occurrence witness, he had categorically deposed that on the date of the accident, ie., on 04.12.2017, the bus driven by the driver of the Transport Corporation was rash and negligent and dashed against the two wheeler and also admitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet. On the side of the Transport Corporation, R.W.1-Conductor was examined. However, we find that during the cross examination, he has fairly admitted that at the time of the accident, he has not witnessed the accident as he was issuing the ticket at the rear end of the bus and hence, we find that based upon the oral evidence of P.W.2, with regard to the manner of the accident, which remains unchallenged in the cross examination and in the absence of any postive evidence being adduced by the Transport Corporation, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation as the deceased was not wearing helmet, 50% of contributory negligence was fixed on the deceased. Hence, such a finding rendered by the Tribunal is well considered and well merited does not warrant any interference by us as the same does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.

¶35

On the point of quantum of compensation, heard both sides.

¶36

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

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶38

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶39

It appears from the evidence of Ex.P.8, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.13, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased based upon Ex.P.10 at Rs.3,00,000/- and based upon the Pan Card as well as the Income Tax Returns, it is fixed the age of the deceased and accordingly, adopted the age 40 and multiplier of 15 as per the Sarla Verma's Case and 40% has been given as future prospects as per the Praneysethi's Case and also for consortium Rs.40,000/- each was given, for funeral and transport expenses, Rs.50,000/- was added and thereupon, 1/3^rd deduction is duly given and hence, we find that on the point of quantum of compensation also the award passed by the Tribunal is bound to be in accordance with law and accordingly, we do not find any merits in this appeal.

¶40

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 24.07.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, is confirmed. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares together with interest and costs on due

¶41

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

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶43

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶44

application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶45

[T.K.R., J.] [P.B.B., J.] 20.11.2023

¶46

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SJI

¶47

¶48

1.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram.

¶49

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶50

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

¶51

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶52

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020

¶53

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

¶54

SJI

¶55

C.M.A(MD)No.624 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6509 of 2020 and 11922 of 2023

¶56

20.11.2023

¶57

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

¶58

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

Managing Director v. Jhansirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director v. Jhansirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.C.Rajasekar Vs Mrs.Muthumeena

Veerammal, Vs M.Murugalakshmi

Veerammal, Vs M. Murugalakshmi

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Kamala

V.Krishnakumar, Vs P.R.Suganya

Oomman Babu Vs Sadasivan Thambi (Died)