← Library
Madras High CourtCMA/1133/2015dismissed

The Managing Director v. Chinnakuzhandai

2021-04-16Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE C.M.A.No.1133 of 2015 and MP No.1 of 2015 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, No.3/137, Balamedu, Vazhuthareddy, Villupuram - 605 602.

....Appellant

Versus

Chinnakuzhandai ....Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 26.11.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram in MCOP No.16 of 2010.

2. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the appellant Transport Corporation to pay the respondent / claimant a compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- for the death of Thirumal, Son of the respondent / claimant as a result of an accident caused by a bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation.

3. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent / claimant are as follows :- Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Overall loss of income 2,52,000 Funeral expenses 5,000 Loss of love and affection 20,000 Total 2,77,000

4. The appellant / Transport Corporation has challenged the award both on quantum as well as on liability. According to them, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the claimant has not established before the Tribunal that the Driver of the bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation was at fault, which resulted in the accident.

5. Heard Mr.J.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Since, this Court is going to confirm the award of the Tribunal, service of notice to the respondent is not necessary.

6. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.

7. The deceased was aged 41 years at the time of the accident and was employed as a Head Cook. The accident happened on 01.01.2010. The Tribunal under the impugned award has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which in the considered view of this Court cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the appellant.

8. The Tribunal has also adopted the correct multiplier of 14. Since the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award towards loss of income at Rs.2,52,000/- is also correct. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the appellant. Therefore, the 1st contention of the appellant that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive is rejected by this Court.

9. With regard to the liability aspect, the respondent / claimant has filed seven documents before the Tribunal, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 and two witnesses were examined on her side viz., the respondent / claimant herself as PW1 and Kalvarayan, an eye witness to the accident as PW2. On the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation neither any document was filed nor any witness was examined before the Tribunal. An FIR (Ex.P1) has also been registered only against the Driver of the bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation. No contra evidence has been produced by the appellant / Transport Corporation to disprove the contention of the respondent / claimant that it was only the Driver of the bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation, who was responsible for the cause of the accident. Therefore, the second contention raised by the appellant with regard to the liability is also rejected by this Court.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar vsi2

To

1. The Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram.

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.

+1cc to Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.23419 C.M.A.No.1133 of 2015 SSN(CO) RLP(30/09/2021)