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 Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Limited, Dharmapuri v/s Bakkiyalakshmi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L70109TG1995PLC019116

Company & Directors' Information:- A S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60222TN1981PTC008886

Company & Directors' Information:- B K B TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300JH1990PTC004226

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090UP2002PTC026917

Company & Directors' Information:- V K TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219GJ1997PTC032421

Company & Directors' Information:- G S TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1989PTC047780

Company & Directors' Information:- G B TRANSPORT (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1979PTC032170

Company & Directors' Information:- V A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202WB1996PTC081673

Company & Directors' Information:- H R T TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63031DL1999PTC102593

Company & Directors' Information:- G M TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60100MH1994PTC076183

Company & Directors' Information:- G L TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60200CH2010PTC032269

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P TRANSPORT CO. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60231OR2006PTC027280

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P TRANSPORT CO. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60231DL2006PTC149707

Company & Directors' Information:- V. N. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL2004PTC125632

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TRANSPORT P LTD [Active] CIN = U60300MH1994PTC078458

Company & Directors' Information:- G R C TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1988PTC044164

Company & Directors' Information:- E C TRANSPORT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1987PLC043252

Company & Directors' Information:- D G R TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60231TZ2010PTC016521

Company & Directors' Information:- P T TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1989PTC046423

Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230OR2007PTC009590

Company & Directors' Information:- C R TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090DL2002PTC115826

Company & Directors' Information:- A P M TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231KL1998PLC012555

Company & Directors' Information:- T. G. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02710CT2004PTC017051

Company & Directors' Information:- J. T. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63031WB2007PTC112457

Company & Directors' Information:- R S R TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TZ1961PTC000392

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63010TN2008PTC070171

Company & Directors' Information:- S P TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059085

Company & Directors' Information:- A B TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60221RJ2000PTC016701

Company & Directors' Information:- G. G. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210AS2008PTC008576

Company & Directors' Information:- A P K TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60221TN2005PTC058057

Company & Directors' Information:- S P S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1997PTC085564

Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TN1938PTC003051

Company & Directors' Information:- A G L TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090TN2005PTC056306

Company & Directors' Information:- W M TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210DL2001PTC113547

Company & Directors' Information:- B V M TRANSPORT CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00739KA1998PTC024103

Company & Directors' Information:- A O TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1960PTC011783

Company & Directors' Information:- M R TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1987PTC042118

Company & Directors' Information:- P P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090DL2003PTC119167

Company & Directors' Information:- D D J TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210PB1996PTC019190

Company & Directors' Information:- M M TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PB1979PTC004031

Company & Directors' Information:- J P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PB1997PTC019652

Company & Directors' Information:- N P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090OR2012PTC015128

Company & Directors' Information:- A N G TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60300MH2013PTC246013

Company & Directors' Information:- L M A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090MH2002PTC135727

Company & Directors' Information:- K. G. N. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC301073

Company & Directors' Information:- B S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040TG2015PTC097190

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60200HP2010PTC031455

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030JK2017PTC009897

Company & Directors' Information:- S N TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U60200DL2014PTC264029

Company & Directors' Information:- R J TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63010DL2013PTC248305

Company & Directors' Information:- S. K. T. TRANSPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230MP2012PTC028886

Company & Directors' Information:- D C V TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210TZ1960PTC000375

Company & Directors' Information:- P V E TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TN1961PTC004682

Company & Directors' Information:- THE TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1940PLC010301

Company & Directors' Information:- K SALEM LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1947PTC005530

    C.M.A. Nos. 468 to 472 of 2021

    Decided On, 23 February 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

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

    For the Appellant: D. Venkatachalam, Advocate. For the Respondents: ------



Judgment Text

(Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award dated 18.01.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri)Common Judgment1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant-Transport Corporation to set aside the common award dated 18.01.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.2. All the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellant in all the appeals is the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation in M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri. The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.No.468 of 2021, respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.A.No.469 of 2021, respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.A.No.470 of 2021 and respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2021 respectively filed the above said claim petitions, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation for the death of G.Raja, M.Krishnan, Balan, K.M.Sekar and K.Kasinathan respectively who died in the accident that took place on 14.02.2013.4. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions, for the sake of convenience.5. According to the claimants in all the claim petitions, on the date of accident, the deceased M. Krishnan, Balan, K.M. Sekar and K. Kasinathan traveled in a Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-2309 belonging to the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation along with other passengers from Krishnagiri to Hosur, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. When the said TNSTC Bus was proceeding at Sappadi Erikarai, a SRS Private Bus bearing Registration No.TN-24-F-2377 belonging to the 2nd respondent coming behind the TNSTC Bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind the TNSTC Bus. Due to the said impact, the driver of the TNSTC Bus lost control and dashed on a Aavin Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-Z-3200 belonging to the 4th respondent and driven by one G. Raja in the opposite direction from Hosur towards Krishnagiri and caused the accident. Again the driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent dashed against the TNSTC Bus and both the Buses capsized. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by drivers of both the TNSTC Bus as well as the SRS Private Bus. In the accident, G. Raja, M. Krishnan, Balan, K.M. Sekar and K. Kasinathan sustained fatal injuries and thus, the claimants filed the above said claim petitions, claiming compensation against the 1st respondent as owner of TNSTC Bus, respondents 2 and 3 as owner and insurer of the SRS Private Bus and respondents 4 and 5 as owner and insurer of the Aavin Tanker Lorry respectively.6. The 1st respondent-Transport Corporation filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made by the claimants in the claim petitions. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, the TNSTC Bus was plying between Krishnagiri and Bangalore cautiously with due care after following all the traffic rules on the left side of the road. The traffic was diverted to Hosur-Krishnagiri road, since the Krishnagiri-Hosur road was under renovation work. At about 13.45 hours, when the TNSTC Bus was proceeding near Sappadi, next to Shoolagiri at Erikarai stop, on seeing the rash and negligent driving by driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent which was proceeding towards Krishnagiri, the driver of the TNSTC Bus stopped the Bus on the left side of the road. The SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent was coming behind the TNSTC Bus. As the traffic was diverted in single lane, all the vehicles passed slowly and cautiously. But due to the high speed in that narrow road, the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry lost his control over the vehicle and ran over the centre mediators and hit against the right side body of the Bus and dragged up to rear side of the TNSTC Bus and also hit against the right front side of the SRS Private Bus and caused the accident. Due to this impact, the TNSTC Bus and the SRS Private Bus capsized on the left side of the road. The Shoolagiri Police have registered a case against the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry in Crime No.72/2013. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent and the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and their legal heirship to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.7. The 2nd respondent, owner of the SRS Private Bus, remained exparte before the Tribunal.8. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of the SRS Private Bus, filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made in the claim petitions. According to the 3rd respondent, when the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent drove the same from Hosur-Krishnagiri in a rash and negligent manner, at uncontrollable speed, he lost control of his vehicle and ran over the centre median and hit against the TNSTC Bus and also hit the SRS Private Bus and caused the accident. In the said impact, the TNSTC Bus capsized. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent. In any event, the 2nd respondent violated the policy conditions by permitting the driver of the SRS Private Bus to drive the vehicle without possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and their legal heirship to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.9. The 4th respondent-owner of the Aavin Tanker Lorry, filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made in the claim petitions, except the manner of accident. According to the 4th respondent, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by drivers of both the TNSTC Bus and SRS Private Bus belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Hence, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In any event, the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and their legal heirship to claim compensation. The total compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions.10. The 5th respondent, insurer of the Aavin Tanker Lorry, filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made in the claim petitions, except the manner of accident. According to the 5th respondent, in the claim petitions, the claimants have claimed that the accident occurred when drivers of both the TNSTC Bus and SRS Private Bus belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 respectively, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Aavin Tanker Lorry. Hence, the respondents 4 and 5 who are the owner and insurer are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In any event, the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry did not possess valid driving license and the vehicle was plied without permit. For violation of policy conditions, the 5th respondent is not liable to indemnify the 4th respondent. In any event, the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and their legal heirship to claim compensation. The total compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions.11. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined the 1st claimant in all the claim petitions as P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.8, P.W.3, and P.W.1 respectively, one Sakthivel, eye-witness as P.W.7 and marked 28 documents as Exs.P1 to P28. The respondents were examined one K.Baskar as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.12. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by all the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and fixed 40% negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation bus, 30% negligence on the part of the driver of the SRS private bus belonging to the 2nd respondent and 30% negligence on the part of the driver of the Aavin tanker lorry belonging to the 4th respondent. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.24,43,000/-, Rs.18,63,000/-, Rs.14,13,000/-, Rs.13,38,000/- and Rs.18,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants respectively and directed the 1st respondent to pay 40% of the award amount, respondents 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay 30% of the award amount and respondents 4 and 5 to jointly and severally pay 30% of the award amount granted to the claimants.13. To set aside the said common award dated 18.01.2016 made in M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013, the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeals.14. Mr. D. Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the other vehicles and the Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the TNSTC bus belonging to the 1st respondent. The Tribunal ought to have considered the FIR which was registered against the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent and fixed entire negligence on the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry. In the absence of any document by the claimants to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions is excessive. The total compensation granted by the Tribunal under other conventional heads are excessive and prayed for setting aside the common award of the Tribunal.15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Transport Corporation and perused the materials available on record.16. From the materials on record, it is seen that FIR was lodged against the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry, who died in the accident. The complaint was given by the Village Administrative Officer who was not an eye witness. P.W.7 is the only eye witness examined in all the claim petitions. He deposed that he traveled in the TNSTC Bus belonging to the 1st respondent and according to him, the driver of the TNSTC Bus belonging to the 1st respondent drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, the driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came behind the TNSTC Bus and dashed against the back side of the TNSTC Bus. In view of the said impact, the driver of the TNSTC Bus lost control and dashed against the Aavin Tanker Lorry which was coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Again the driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent dashed against the TNSTC Bus and the said Bus capsized. P.W.7 deposed that the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry also drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Bus. The 1st respondent has not examined the driver of the TNSTC Bus or any other eye witness to disprove the evidence of P.W.7. The driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry died in the accident. R.W.1 is only an official from the Insurance Company and he is not an eye witness. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.7 and contents in the claim petitions wherein it has been pleaded that the drivers of all the 3 vehicles drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and all the vehicles involved in the accident are heavy vehicles, held that all the 3 drivers are responsible for the accident and fixed contributory negligence of 40% on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent, 30% on the part of the driver of the SRS Private Bus belonging to the 2nd respondent and 30% on the part of the driver of the Aavin Tanker Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent and directed the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation to pay 40% of the compensation awarded, the respondents 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay 30% and the respondents 4 and 5 to jointly and severally pay 30% of the compensation granted by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions. There is no error in the said award warranting interference by this Court.17. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the documents filed in the claim petition in M.C.O.P.Nos.796 and 851 of 2013 with regard to income of the deceased and fixed monthly income of the deceased. In M.C.O.P.No.949 of 2013, the claimants have contended that the deceased was running a Dry cleaning shop and Laundry shop and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month, in M.C.O.P.No.929 of 2013, the claimants have contended that the deceased was an Agriculturist and was selling flower and doing cloth business and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and in M.C.O.P.No.938 of 2013, the deceased was a Building Contract Labourer and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants have failed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased persons in the above three claim petitions. In the absence of material, the Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-, Rs.7,500/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively. The accident is of the year 2013. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The total compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive.18. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.24,43,000/-, Rs.18,63,000/-, Rs.14,13,000/-, Rs.13,38,000/- and Rs.18,62,000/- along with interest and costs is confirmed. The 1st respondent is liable to deposit 40% of the award amount. The respondents 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to deposit 30% of the award amount, respondents 4 and 5 are jointly and severally directed to deposit 30% of the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013. Out of the 40% award amount which the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit, the 1st respondent is directed to deposit 50% of the 40% of award amount along proportionate with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.851, 938, 949, 929 & 796 of 2013 and deposit the remaining 50% of the 40% award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, within eight weeks thereafter.(i) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.Nos.851 & 796 of 2013, the respondents 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.(ii) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.938 of 2013, the respondents 1, 5 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribun

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

al, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The shares of the minor respondents 2 to 4 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minors attain majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor respondents 2 to 4 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 to 4.(iii) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.949 of 2013, the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The shares of the minor 4th respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor 4th respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor 4th respondent.(iv) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.929 of 2013, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor 3rd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor 3rd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor 3rd respondent. No costs.
O R