M/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport v. Santhi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2012 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Through its Managing Director, Pudukottai.
... Appellant/1st respondent Vs.
1.Santhi, 2.Nivethidha, 3.Shymala (minor), 4.Sindhuja (minor), (Respondents 3 and 4 are represented by its mother/1st respondent) Gnanasundaram (died) ... Respondents/Petitioners 5.Saraswathi, 6.Omprakash, 7.M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., No.33, Bhupal Complex, Park Road, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh - 518 001.
... Respondents/2nd and 3rd respondents [6th respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal] Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Page No. 1 of 8
Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside judgment and decree dated 16.06.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.754 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Trichy. For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents for R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian for R6 : Dispensed with for R7 : No appearance *****
J U D G M E N T
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants filed a claim petition stating that the deceased was working as a Conductor in the appellant/Transport Corporation; and that during the course of employment, the driver of the bus, in which, he was traveling, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused a collision with a stationery lorry, as a result of which, he sustained fatal injuries.
3. The appellant/Transport Corporation filed a counter denying the averments in the claim petition and stating that the accident did not take Page No. 2 of 8
place due to the negligence of the bus driver.
4. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants examined three witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P6 from their side. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined R.W.1 on their side and no documents were marked. The Salary Certificate of the deceased was marked as a Court Document as Ex.X1.
5. The Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver and awarded the compensation of Rs.11,03,900/- payable by the appellant/Transport Corporation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the finding on negligence is erroneous, inasmuch as though the lorry was parked without any indicator, the Tribunal had not attributed the contributory negligence to the lorry driver; and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants, per contra, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and that the Tribunal had not considered the future prospects Page No. 3 of 8
while computing the loss of income.
8. Since the sixth respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal, notice to the sixth respondent is dispensed with. Though notice to the seventh respondent has been served and the name has also been printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance.
9. The points for consideration are as follows: 'a. Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified? b. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?'
10. As regards the first question, it is seen that the claimant had examined the eye witness-P.W.3 and marked Ex.P1-FIR to corroborate his version of P.W.3. That apart, the Police had filed Ex.P6-Final Report holding that the bus driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving. In the light of the other evidence on record, R.W.1's evidence does not inspire confidence. Therefore, the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified in accordance with law. The point No.1 is answered accordingly. Page No. 4 of 8
11. As regards the quantum of compensation, admittedly, the deceased was earning a sum Rs.8,410/- at the time of his death and the Tribunal had adopted the said income. However, the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the addition towards future prospects, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Since the deceased had a permanent job, 30% has to be added towards future prospects. In view of the number of dependents, 1⁄4 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses. The multiplier applicable is '15'. Therefore, the compensation under the head 'loss of income' has to be Rs.8,410/- + Rs.2523/- (30%) x 12 x 15 x 3⁄4= Rs.14,75,955/-. The compensation awarded under other heads are confirmed. Though there is no appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, this Court is of the view that in order to award just and reasonable compensation, the compensation can be enhanced. Thus, the compensation payable by the appellant is enhanced to Rs.15,75,955/- in the following manner: Sl.
No Description Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed, enhanced or granted Loss of Income Rs.10,03,900/- Rs.14,75,955/- Enhanced Loss of Consortium Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed Page No. 5 of 8
Loss of Love and affection (Rs.15,000/- x 5) Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/- Confirmed Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.11,03,900/- Rs.15,75,955/- Enhanced by Rs.4,72,055/-
12. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.15,75,955/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Five only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 2 and 5/claimants are entitled to withdraw their share amount together with proportionate interest and costs, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate applications before the Tribunal.
14. The respondents 3 and 4/claimants were minors when the claim Page No. 6 of 8
petition was filed in the year 2007. They would have attained the age of majority now. Hence, they are permitted to file appropriate application for recording their majority and to withdraw their share. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced amount.
15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30.08.2024 Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd To:
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II Additional Sub Judge, Trichy.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 7 of 8
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
apd 30.08.2024 Page No. 8 of 8