Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Bhanupriya

Madras HC9 Feb 2024CMA(MD)/236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fatal motor accident claim where the transport corporation sought fixation of contributory negligence and claimants sought enhanced compensation via cross objection. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the corporation's bus was on the wrong side, found no evidence to increase notional salary of Rs.7,500, confirmed the award of Rs.18,91,000 with 7.5% interest, and dismissed both appeal and

What the court decided

AI extract

The Divisional Manager Vs Bhanupriya — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022, Cross.Obj(MD)No.24 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2108 of 2022

¶7

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022:

¶8

The Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division, Karaikudi. ... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Bhanupriya 2.Minor Yazhi Sri 3.Muthu Krishnan 4.Jeyalakshmi ... Respondents

¶11

(2^nd respondent represented through her mother and natural guardian 1^st respondent)

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2015, dated 19.05.2020, on the file of the MACT (Additional District Judge), Ramanathapuram.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶17

For R1 to 4 : Mr.P.M.Hassanul Bazari R2 : Minor represented by R1

¶18

Cross.Obj(MD)No.236 of 2022:

¶19

1.Bhanupriya

¶20

2.Minor Yazhi Sri

¶21

3.Muthu Krishnan

¶22

4.Jeyalakshmi

¶23

... Cross Objectors / Respondents

¶24

(2^nd respondent represented through her mother and natural guardian 1^st respondent)

¶25

Vs.

¶26

The Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division, Karaikudi. ... Cross Respondent / Appellant

¶27

PRAYER: Cross Objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code to enhance the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No,95 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, dated 18.09.2018, against which C.M.A.(MD)No.236 of 2022 has been and allow this cross objection.

¶28

For Cross Objectors : Mr.P.M.Hassanul Bazari For Cross Respondent : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan *****

¶29

JUDGEMENT

¶30

The Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. It is a case of fatal.

¶31

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

¶32

2/6

¶33

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶34

The contention of the appellant is that the deceased is also liable for the

¶35

accident and hence the contributory negligence ought to be fixed against the deceased. But the Tribunal had rendered a finding that the two-wheeler was running on the extreme left and the vehicle of the Transport Corporation was running on the wrong side.

¶36

The learned Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has not

¶37

produced any evidence to reverse the said finding. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of contributory negligence. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just and fair compensation.

¶38

The claimants have also filed cross objection in the present case. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has taken notional salary as Rs.7,500/- but the deceased was doing prawn business. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the deceased was doing prawn business. However, it is seen that the deceased is possessing ITI certificate, but it is not proved that he was employed elsewhere. There cannot be any enhancement in fixation of notional salary without evidence. Therefore, this Court is not able to accept the plea of the claimants as well. Therefore, the Tribunal award is

¶39

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

¶40

3/6

¶41

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶42

confirmed.

¶43

5.The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.18,91,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs, less the sum already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares with accrued interests and costs in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn by them, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor child in a nationalized bank until the child attains majority. The first respondent herein, who is the mother/guardian, is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three months.

¶44

Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

09.02.2024

¶46

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Tmg

¶47

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

¶48

4/6

¶49

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶50

¶51

1.MACT (Additional District Judge), Ramanathapuram.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

5/6

¶55

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶56

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶57

Tmg

¶58

C.M.A(MD)No.236 of 2022

¶59

09.02.2024

¶60

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

¶61

6/6

The Divisional Manager v. Bhanupriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Divisional Manager v. Bhanupriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Esakki, Vs a.Venkatesaraman

Perumayee, Vs Pillaiyar

The Manager Vs Saminathan

Rooth Gnanadeepam, Vs Daniel Gunasekarraja

The Managing Director Vs Marakatham @ Geetha

S.Chellamal( Died) P.Thiruvannamalaiyammal (Died) 1.K. Shanmuga Perumal Vs M.Arunachala Pandian