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

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai v/s Sarasu & Others

    C.M.A. No. 1548 of 2022 & C.M.P. No. 11906 of 2022
    Decided On, 28 July 2022
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Appellant: K. Kathiresan, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, (Motor Vehicle Accident Cases) Villupuram.)

1. The Transport-Corporation is the appellant before this Court, challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court (Motor Vehicle Accident Cases), Villupuram on the ground of negligence as well as the ground of quantum.

2. The facts which had given rise to the above appeal are as follows:-

The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners had filed the above claim petition seeking a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of one Deenadayalan, the husband of the first petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 to 4 in a road accident on 03.02.2015. It is their case that the deceased Deenadayalan, who retired from the Veterinary Department of the Tamil Nadu Government, was running a veterinary dispensary for animals and earning a monthly income of Rs.45,000/-. On 03.02.2015 at about 12.30 p.m midnight, the said Deenadayalan was travelling in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 09 W 6539 and proceeding north-south from Villupuram, when he reached Deivani Ammal Women's College, the bus belonging to the respondent-transport corporation, bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 9798, which was travelling in the same direction, dashed the vehicle of the deceased Deenadayalan from behind, as a result of which, he had fallen down and sustained grievous injuries to his head and all over body. He was rushed to the Government Hospital at Villupuram, where initial treatment was initiated and thereafter, he was transferred to Medical College and Hospital at Mundiampakkam, Villupuram and since the treatment was not giving the desired results, he was shifted to JIPMER, Pondicherry. However, despite the best efforts, he succumbed to his injuries on 07.02.2015, four days after the accident. The petitioners had therefore come forward with the claim petition.

4. The Transport Corporation had filed a counter, in which, they would state that the respondent-Driver wanted to over-take the motor cyclist, he had given the due warning by blowing the sound horn and had overtaken the said Deenadayalan. However, he suddenly decided to overtake the respondent bus, as a result, he lost his control and dashed the rear side of the respondent-bus and fell down. The accident was not on account of any negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent-bus and even if the Court where to hold that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the respondent-bus, a portion has to be fastened on the deceased Deenadayalan, since he has by his negligence contributed to the accident. The respondent-Corporation would submit that since the bus is a heavy vehicle, the Police officials fastened the negligence on them and file the case against the driver of the respondent-bus. The respondent had also raised a plea that the petitioners had not impleaded the owner of the two wheeler, bearing registration No.TN 09 W 6539 and its insurer (vehicle in which the deceased was travelling).

5. The Tribunal below, after examining the witnesses and marking exhibits, had passed its Award on 27.02.2020 fastening the negligence on the driver of the respondent-transport corporation and granting a total compensation of Rs. 11,72,500/-. The Tribunal has taken into account the Ex.P10, where the pension earned by the deceased Deenadayalan was a sum of Rs.17,472/-. The deceased was aged about 65 years and therefore, the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 7 and granted a sum of Rs.11,02,500/- under the head of Loss of Earning. The Tribunal has awarded consortium only to the first petitioner, the wife of the deceased and granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate. Challenging the above Award, the Transport-Corporation is before this Court.

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

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the transport- Corporation would submit that the accident had occurred only on account of the fact that the driver of the bus, while overtaking the motor-cycle of the deceased, had swerved to the left to avoid a vehicle coming from the opposite direction and at that time, had knocked down the deceased Deenadayalan. Therefore, the negligence had to be apportioned and further, the petitioners had not impleaded the vehicle, which is c

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
oming in the opposite direction. 8. Though such an argument is raised, a perusal of the counter statement does not reveal the existence of the third vehicle. The argument appears to be an after thought. Further, a perusal of the compensation that has been granted appears to be very reasonable and the Tribunal ensured that all the parameters are considered for granting the compensation. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.