Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.K.Geetha on 5 September, 2012
C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED.28.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Villupuram ... Appellant
vs.
1.P.K.Geetha
2.P.K.Sruthi (Minor)
3.P.K.Sarath (Minor)
(Minors are rep. by their mother
and next friend Mrs.P.K.Geetha)
4.A.K.Indira ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai made in
MCOP.No.3 of 2009 dated 05.09.2012.
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Satish
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kalaiarasan for R4
R1 – left
R2 & R3 are minors
JUDGMENT
[This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing] This appeal has been filed by the Appellant Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in MCOP.No.3 of 2009.
2. A person by name A.K.Sunil kumar died on 28.11.2008 as a result of an accident which took place on 24.11.2008 caused by a bus owned by the Appellant Transport Corporation. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased A.K.Sunil kumar and they preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of A.K.Sunil kumar. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the 2/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 impugned award has directed the Appellant Transport Corporation to pay the respondents a sum of Rs.10,32,800/- as compensation together with interest and cost as detailed hereunder:
Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of pecuniary benefits 9,82,800/-
(6000 + 30% = 7800 – ¼ = 5850 x
12 x 14)
Loss of consortium 10,000/-
Loss of love and affection 30,000/-
Funeral expenses 10,000/-
Total 10,82,800/-
3. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, the Appellant Transport Corporation has preferred this Appeal.
4. The Appellant / Transport corporation has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds (a) the deceased himself was a tortfeaser and hence, they are not liable to compensate the claim (b) the 3/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is excessive and (c) they have challenged the assessment of monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.7,800/- which according to them is on the higher side.
5. The deceased as seen from the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants was a partner in Indira Battery Service & Auto Electricals, Chennai – 600 078 and was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
6. Before the Tribunal, the respondents have filed twelve documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and three witnesses were examined on their side namely the first respondent who is the wife of the deceased as PW1, a partner in Indira Battery Service & Auto Electricals, Chennai – 600078 as PW2 and an eyewitness to the accident as PW3. On the side of the Appellant/Transport Corporation, no document was filed and one witness was examined as RW1.
4/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014
7. With regard to the first contention raised by the Appellant that the deceased himself was a tortfeaser and hence, they are not liable to compensate the claim, the Tribunal has considered the issue under the impugned award. The Sub Inspector of Police, J-5, Guindy Traffic Investigation Wing has registered a case in Crime No.564/S2/2008 only against the driver of the bus owned by the Transport Corporation. A copy of the FIR has also been marked as Ex.P1 before the Tribunal. The Rough Sketch prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police with regard to the scene of the accident was also filed by the respondents before the Tribunal which was marked as Ex.P2. The oral evidence adduced by PW3, an eyewitness to the accident also supports the contention of the respondents/claimants that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by the Transport Corporation, the accident had happened. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects and only thereafter, has rightly come to the conclusion that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of 5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 the bus owned by the Appellant/Transport Corporation, A.K.Sunil Kumar died.
8. With regard to the second contention raised by the Appellant that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, the same will also have to be rejected by this Court for the following reasons:
(a) the deceased was a partner at Indira Battery Service & Auto Electricals, Chennai – 600 078, aged 38 years at the time of the accident. Before the Tribunal, the respondents/claimants have filed the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex.P9) through the partner of the deceased PW2, (b) copy of the Indian Bank statement pertaining to the deceased (Ex.P10), (c) copy of the Indian Overseas Bank statement pertaining to the deceased (Ex.P11), and copy of the Bank of Baroda statement pertaining to the deceased (Ex.P12).
9. In the claim petition, the respondents have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Ex.P9 is the salary certificate 6/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 of the deceased. Ex.P9 discloses that the deceased was earning towards Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondents/claimants have also filed the bank statements pertaining to the bank accounts of the deceased which were marked as ExP10 to Ex.P12. Since excepting for filing the salary certificate of the deceased, the respondents/claimants have not filed any supporting documents such as profit and loss account, income tax returns etc, the Tribunal after considering the aforementioned document as seen from Ex.P9 has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs.6,000/-. The year of the accident is 2008. Considering the year of the accident, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is a correct assessment.
10. The Tribunal has rightly added 30% towards future prospects to the respondents under the impugned award and has also deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenses of the deceased in accordance with the settled 7/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 practice. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,82,800/- towards loss of pecuniary benefits to the respondents, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses which in the considered view of this Court is a correct assessment.
Conclusion:
11. For the foregoing reasons, there is no scope for interference with regard to the impugned award. In the result, there is no merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. However, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is confirmed. The Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs after deducting the amount already deposited if any to the credit of MCOP.No.3 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of 8/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective shares of award amount along with accrued interest lying to the credit of MCOP.No.3 of 2009 to the bank accounts of the 1 st and 4th respondents/claimants within a period of two weeks thereafter. Since the respondents 2 and 3 are minors, their respective shares of award amount shall be deposited in interest bearing fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Bank and the first respondent/mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months for the welfare of the minors. If the minors attain majority, it is open for them to file a formal petition before the Tribunal to declare them as major. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.08.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nl 9/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.
C.M.A.No.853 of 2013 10/11 http://www.judis.nic.in