The General Manager, v. Revathi,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.M.A.(MD)No.164 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD).No.2576 of 2016 The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam.

... Appellant Vs.

1. Revathi,

2. Minor Mugesh

3. Minor Soumiya

4. Minor Ramachandran

5. Pushpavalli (Minors 2 to 4 are represented by their guardian and mother the 1st respondent Revathi) ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.413 of 2011 dated 03.12.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.413 of 2011 dated 03.12.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur.

2. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.413 of 2011. The respondents filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation for the death of one Baskar, who is the husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 to 4 and son of the fifth respondent. According to the respondents, the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. The appellant filed a counter denying that the accident took place due

to the negligence of the driver of the appellant bus. On the other hand, the appellant stated that the deceased came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the bus and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1, Janarthanan was examined as P.W.2 and one Balakrishnan was examined as P.W.2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.A1 to A7. The appellant examined his driver as R.W.1 and did not mark any documents. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings evidence of P.W.2/eye witness and First Information Report, held that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. Considering the age of the deceased and nature of the work of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts as compensation.

Sl.No Heads Calculation 1.

Salary Rs.6,000/- per month 2.

1/3rd of (1) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.6000-2000=Rs.4,000 per month 3.

Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied Rs.4,000/-x12x13 = Rs.6,24,000/- 4.

Loss of consortium for 1st petitioner Rs.15,000/- 5.

Loss of love and affection for 2 to 4 petitioners each Rs.15,000/- Rs.45,000/- 6.

Loss of love and affection for 5th petitioner Rs.10,000/- 7.

Medical bill as per Ex.P5 Rs.24,960/- 8.

Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.7,23,960/- Against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge failed to take note the accident took place only due to the fault of the deceased. The learned Judge erred in not accepting the evidence of driver of the appellant. The learned Judge erred in fastening the entire liability on the driver of the appellant and the amount awarded is excessive.

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

5. The respondents have examined eye-witness P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1, First Information Report. The evidence of the eye witness/P.W.2 and First Information Report clearly shows that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The appellant, apart from examining the driver, did not examine any other witness or file documents to show that

accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. In the circumstances, there is no reason to set aside the order of the Tribunal. The respondents have proved that the deceased is a mason and Member of Tamil Nadu Builders Welfare Association. In the absence of any evidence being produced by the respondents with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the minimum wages fixed by the Court with regard to mason and arrived at compensation for loss of income by taking into account the age of the deceased from the postmortem report and applied multiplier method from the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Smt.Sarala Varma and other vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC) and Santhose Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2012 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and is as per law.

6. For the reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur.

+ 1 CC TO M/S.P.PRABHAKARAN, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 14676 AKV TE/DB/SAR-III : 02/06/2016 : 3P/3C C.M.A.(MD)No.164 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD).No.2576 of 2016 16.03.2016