w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Chennai. v/s Amsa Rani & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- AMSA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016636

Company & Directors' Information:- A T EXPRESS INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030DL2009PLC193660

Company & Directors' Information:- N R EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040WB1999PTC089271

Company & Directors' Information:- P J EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040WB1995PTC075515

Company & Directors' Information:- G M S EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120KA2006PTC040159

Company & Directors' Information:- U C EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120MH2004PTC148038

Company & Directors' Information:- R R EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U97000DL2014PTC267284

Company & Directors' Information:- S F EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120DL2015PTC279322

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090GJ2012PTC070288

Company & Directors' Information:- D K G EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15499UP1982PTC005721

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND G EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120MH2003PTC139461

    C.M.A. No. 283 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 1944 of 2020

    Decided On, 31 January 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI

    For the Appellant: V. Udayakumar, Advocate. For the Respondent ---------



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 07.11.2013, made in M.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award dated 07.11.2013, made in M.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem.

2. The appellant is the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Jayavikraman, who died in the accident that took place on 04.10.2007.

3. According to the respondents 1 and 2, on the date of accident, viz., 04.10.2007, while the deceased was riding his two wheeler on the Omalur main road, Salem, near AVR Swarnamahal, driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transportation Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-6915, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle of the deceased. In the said impact, the deceased fell down and the Bus ran over the deceased and the said Jayavikraman died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the above claim petition, claiming compensation against the 3rd respondent and the appellant.

4. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied the various averments made by the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition. According to the appellant, while the bus was running in the Omalur main road, from the bus stand, there was a commotion and hence the driver stopped the bus. After getting down from the bus, it was seen that the deceased attempted to over take the bus on the left hand side, got stuck under the bus and thus the accident occurred. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2 examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The appellant examined driver of the bus as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant as well as the 3rd respondent to pay a of Rs.6,73,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2.

7. Against the said award dated 07.11.2013, made in M.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the respondents 1 and 2 have not filed rough sketch to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 have not proved the avocation, income and age of the deceased. The Tribunal without considering the same, has fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- as monthly income and erred in adopting multiplier '17'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

10. It is the contention of the appellant-Transport Corporation that the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in the absence of any rough sketch produced by the respondents 1 and 2. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A3 - charge sheet, rejected the evidence of R.W.1 on the ground that he has not seen the occurrence and he stopped the bus only after the passengers in the bus alerted him and rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.

11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents 1 and 2 have contended that the deceased was working as a Dance Teacher and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- from School and Rs.2,500/- by way of special pay. They have examined P.W.3- administrative staff of the School to prove the same and filed Ex.P7- salary certificate, Ex.P10- attendance register, and Ex.P11-acquittance role. The Tribunal considering the said materials on record, fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- as monthly income, which is not erroneous. The deceased was a bachelor and was aged 27 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier '17' and deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation under the head, loss of dependency. In any event, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and does not warrant interference by this Court.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Tribunal at Rs.6,73,000/- along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 35 of 2008. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn if any, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R