Fatal accident where a passenger alighting from a town bus fell under its rear wheel and died. The Transport Corporation appealed against liability, negligence and quantum. The court upheld the driver's negligence, noting absence of contrary evidence and violation of door-closing safety norms, and confirmed the award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.608 of 2025 and CMP(MD)No.9950 of 2025
Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Uppliyapuram Tepo, Thuraiyur (Tk), Trichy (Dt). ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Ambujam
2.Sujitha
3.Ishwarya ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal by setting aside the order and decreetal order dated 12.12.2024 made in MCOP.No.415 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/The learned Subordinate Judge, Musiri.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel for TNSTC ( Madurai, Kumbakonam, Tirunelveli) For Respondent : Mr.S.Vashik Ali
2
ORDER
The appellant/Transport Corporation has filed this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal challenging the liability, negligence and quantum of compensation awarded in MCOP.No.415 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/The learned Subordinate Judge, Musiri.
3
learned Subordinate Judge, Musiri, seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/-.
negligence and also the monthly income of the deceased.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 and 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked and on the side of the Transport Corporation no one was examined and no document was marked.
6 . Finding of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus. Even though the respondents/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month, no evidence was adduced to prove the same. Hence, the learned Judge fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.17,534/- per month by adopting ' Cost Inflation Index Method '. Since the claimants are three in numbers, deducted 1/3 amount towards personal expenses and considering the age of the deceased as 58 years, multiplier of '9' was taken into account and also added 10% towards future prospects, granted Rs.48,000/- (each claimant) towards Loss
4
of consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards Loss of Estate and Rs.18,000/- towards
Funeral Expenses and totally awarded a sum of Rs.15,68,664/- as compensation under the following heads:
| Sl.No. | Heads | Amount in Rupees |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Loss of Dependency | Rs.13,88,664/- |
| 2. | Loss of consortium | Rs. 1,44,000/- |
| (Rs.48,000/- x 3) | ||
| 3. | Loss of Estate | Rs. 18,000/- |
| 4. | Funeral expenses | Rs. 18,000/- |
| Total | Rs.15,68,664/- |
this appeal questioning the liability, negligence and also the quantum.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation would
submit that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. The deceased was standing on the footboard and in spite of the warning given by the conductor, the deceased did not heed, and in a hurried way, he alighted from the bus before the driver stopped the bus at the bus stop. But, the learned trial judge fixed the liability on the driver of the bus of the appellant/Transport Corporation. Hence, he seeks to allow this appeal by setting aside the appeal.
5
9.The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that
FIR and the other material documents and the evidence of P.W.2 clearly prove the negligence on the part of the driver as well as the conductor of the bus. Upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal awarded the compensation and hence, it does not require no interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
i) Whether the compensation granted is in accordance with law?
Corporation, the deceased travelled on the footboard and hence, he is responsible for the accident but, the learned trial judge considered the independent evidence, fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus which is correct. No contrary evidence was adduced by the appellant/Transport Corporation before the learned Tribunal Judge. FIR and the other material documents and the evidence of P.W.2 show the negligence on the part of the driver as well as the conductor of the bus. In the case of footboard travel, it is
6
the duty of the conductor to advise the passenger to get inside the bus. If the passenger does not heed, it is the responsibility of the conductor to stop the bus and drop the passenger. Allowing a passenger to travel on the footboard without taking such precautions amounts to negligence on the part of the conductor. It is the duty of the conductor to ensure the safety of passengers by advising them ot to travel on foot board. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show that this duty was done by the said conductor. There is also no evidence to prove that the accident occurred as a result of footboard travel. In the absence of such evidence, this Court finds no merit in the contention that this the deceased travelled on foot borad which led to his death.
(ii) to prevent travel on the footboard or outside the bus body,
(iii) to avoid accidents due to sudden movement or falls from the
7
footboard.
14 Public transport Corporation buses are running without the automatic door to avoid such accident which amounts to negligence and careless act. Therefore, this reason also justifies the finding of the learned trial Judge in holding that the driver of the Transport Corporation was at fault in driving the bus.
8
learned trial Judge correctly granted the compensation of Rs.15,68,664/upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants. No contrary evidence was adduced by the appellant/Transport corporation. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
04.07.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss
To
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
9
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
C.M.A.(MD).No.608 of 2025
04.07.2025
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the bus driver and the quantum of compensation of Rs.15,68,664 awarded in the fatal accident claim were correct?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Uppliyapuram Tepo, Thuraiyur
Ambujam
Sujitha
Ishwarya
K.K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
