Dismissed

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, v. Rajeshwari

Madras HC26 Apr 2024CMA(MD)/143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation seeking to set aside a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 16,82,000/- for death caused by rash and negligent driving. Upholding the Tribunal's findings on liability and quantum, the Court found no error in the award.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed. No costs.

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 26/04/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

CMA(MD)No.143 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.1323 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation

¶8

Limited,

¶9

Rep. by its Managing Director, No.2, Thiruvanathapuram Road, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli. : Appellant/Respondent

Vs.

1.Rajeshwari

2.Minor Pool Kumar

3.Minor Hariharan (Minor respondents 2 and 3

¶14

are represented through their mother/natural guardian

¶15

1^st respondent herein)

¶16

4.Esakki Konar : Respondents/Claimants

¶17

PRAYER: -Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to call for the records relating to the Award, dated 28/02/2020 passed in MCOP No.1478 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III-Additional District Court), Tirunelveli and to set aside the same and to pass such other further reliefs.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajamohan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.T.Selvakumaran

¶20

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

¶21

1/6

¶22

CMA.(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 28/02/2020 passed in MCOP No.1478 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III-Additional District Court), Tirunelveli.

¶25

2. The facts in brief :-

¶26

On 23/07/2018 at about 08.30 pm, the deceased was

¶27

proceeding from north to south direction on the Bye-Pass road near Ruchi Hotel. At that time, the Bus bearing registration No.TN-72-N-2016 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and hit the deceased. He sustained multiple injuries, taken to the TVMC Hospital, Tirunelveli. But on the way to the hospital, he died. A case in Crime No.225 of 2018 was registered for the offences under sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the first respondent's vehicle driver. Claiming compensation amount, the claimants filed the claim petition.

¶28

3.That was resisted by the appellant herein stating that the deceased suddenly crossed the road and invited the occurrence, as such the first respondent vehicle driver is no way responsible. Other customary denials are made.

¶29

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

¶30

2/6

¶31

CMA.(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶32

4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined and 3 documents marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced and no document was marked.

¶33

5.At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Tribunal

¶34

came to the conclusion that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent Bus the occurrence took place and awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,82,000/-.

¶35

6.Regarding the first point, the Tribunal has

¶36

recorded a finding that the eye witness to the occurrence namely PW2 corroborated the averments made in the FIR. PW2 has stated in his evidence that only because of the

¶37

rash and negligent driving of the appellant vehicle driver, the occurrence took place. The appellant/1^st

¶38

respondent has not chosen to examine its driver. In the

¶39

absence of any direct evidence from the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation, adverse inference was drawn.

¶40

7.So from the averments made in the complaint and the petition, it is seen that the deceased was riding his vehicle from north to south direction. The appellant

¶41

3/6

¶42

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

¶43

CMA.(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶44

vehicle came in the opposite direction. So, the manner in which the occurrence took place also indicates the fault of the driver of the appellant Bus driver. The Tribunal recorded a correct finding. So, no interference is called for.

¶45

8.Regarding the compensation, the appellant makes objections. Regarding compensation portion, the Tribunal found that the deceased was working in a sugarcane juice shop. There was no corroborating evidence to show the same. So, in the absence of any material evidence to show the correct income, but in the FIR, it is mentioned that he was working as employee in a Sugarcane Juice shop. Considering the age of the deceased, the notional income was fixed at Rs.8,000/- which in the considered view of this court is not on the higher side. Even a daily wager gets Rs.600 to Rs.700/- per day. To this amount, added future prospect norms. Finally, the monthly income was arrived at Rs.11,200/-. Correct multiplier was also adopted considering the age. Other customary amount have also been added. It finally arrived at a total compensation of Rs.16,82,000/-. I am of the considered view that absolutely it is not on the higher side. Quantum has been reasonably fixed by the Tribunal, which requires no interference by this court.

¶46

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

¶47

4/6

¶48

dismissed

¶49

CMA.(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶50

9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶51

dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

26/04/2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

¶53

To,

¶54

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶55

2.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶56

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

¶57

5/6

¶58

CMA.(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶59

G.ILANGOVAN, J

¶60

¶61

CMA(MD)No.143 of 2022

¶62

26/04/2024

¶63

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

¶64

6/6

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, v. Rajeshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, v. Rajeshwari

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

The Branch Manager, Vs Mariamerkala

Someshwari, Vs Palanivelu

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Praveen Kumar

Sankaranarayan, Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited

Paripooranam Vs M/S.United India Insurance Company Limited

The Branch Manager, Vs Alamelu