✦ High Court of India · 14 Mar 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 14 Mar 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

14 Mar 2025

Bench

S.SOUNTHAR

Length

1,567 words

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act 1988

Cited in this judgment

(2017) 16 SCC 680

C.M.A.No.971 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARC.M.A.No.971 of 2022and C.M.P.No.7179 of 2022The Managing Director,Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Limited,Ramanagar Division,Ramanagar, Bengaluru.... Appellantvs.1.Kokila2.Alamelu3.Govindaswami (Died)4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Road Transport Corporation Limited, (Salem), 12, Ramakrishna Road, Regional office at Dharmapuri.... Respondents(Respondent-3 died. Respondent-2 (who is already on record) are recorded as LRs of the deceased R-3 viz., Govindaswami vide Court order dated 07.03.2025 made in CMA.No.971 of 2022)PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court) at Krishnagiri.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 2022For Appellant: Mr.T.ThiyagarajanFor R1 and R2: Mr..Sivakumar for M/s.C.PrabakaranFor R4: M/s.D.NitinFor R3: DiedJ U D G M E N TThe Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Transport Corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2020, dated 19.08.2021, fixing compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants at Rs.14,73,300/-.2. It is the case of the claimants that on 22.10.2018, the deceased was driving Bajaj Pulsar Two Wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-29-BX-7311 from Hosur to Bangalore, near Ashok Leyland Unit I, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-2155 belonged to the 4th respondent/Transport Corporation was standing in its bus stop on the left side of the road, at that point of time, the appellant/bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-F-1188 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Bajaj Pulsar Two Wheeler. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 2022sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.3. The appellant herein filed counter and resisted the claim petition on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. It was the case of the appellant/Transport Corporation that deceased dashed against the 4th respondent/bus from back side and fell down in the right hand side of the road. The wheel of the appellant/bus which was proceeding on the middle lane of the highway road, ran over the deceased. Therefore, according to the appellant/Transport Corporation, the accident was solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/3rd claimant was examined as PW.1 and two eyewitnesses were examined as PW.2 and PW.3. On behalf of the claimants, 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. The Driver of the Appellant/Transport Corporation was examined as RW.1 and driver of the 4th respondent/Transport Corporation was examined as RW.2. On behalf of the both Transport Corporations, no documentary evidence was let in. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 20225. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and fixed 25% contributory negligence on the deceased and 75% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant/bus. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.19,64,400/-. Aggrieved by the fixation of 25% negligence on the part of the deceased, the Appellant/Transport Corporation has filed this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that while 4th respondent/bus was stopped in the bus stop, to enable passengers to alight and board the vehicle, the deceased came in a two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the 4th respondent-bus and fell down in front of the appellant/bus. It is also stated that by the time the collision between the two wheeler of the deceased and back side of the 4th respondent/bus happened, the appellant/bus almost crossed the scene of occurrence and only rear wheel of the appellant/bus ran over the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the entire negligence was on the part of the deceased. 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 20227. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants would submit that the appellant/bus driver was driving its bus in a high speed and therefore, he could not stop the vehicle on seeing accident. Therefore, according to him, the appellant's driver was primarily responsible for the accident. In order to prove the negligence, the claimants examined two eyewitnesses as PW.2 and PW.3. 8. PW.2 in his evidence deposed as follows:-epd;W bfhz;oUe;j jkpH;ehL muR ngUe;jpd; kPJ ,Urf;fu“ thfdj;jpid Xl;o te;jth; mjid Ke;jpr;bry;y Kad;w bghGJ ngUe;jpd; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; nyrhf curp mth; mjdhy; fPnH tpGe;;J tpl;lhh;/ mjd; gpd;g[ jhd; fh;ehlf muR ngUe;jhdJ mth; kPJ nkhjpaJ/”9. The other eyewitness, who was examined as PW.3 in his cross examination deposed as follows:-jkpHf muR ngUe;ij ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; te;jth;“ Ke;jpr;bry;y Kad;w bghGJ me;j ngUe;jpd; kPJ nkhjp fPnH tpGe;jjpy; mjd; gpd;g[ jhd; fh;ehlhf muR ngUe;J jhd; mth; kPJ VwpaJ/”5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 202210. The Driver of the appellant/bus namely RW.1 in his evidence deposes as follows:-,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; te;jth; 3tJ rhiyapy; ntfkhf te;J“ vd; ngUe;ij Ke;jpf;bfhz;L brd;W Kd;dho epd;Wf;bfhz;oUe;j g!;rpd; gpd; gf;f tyJ gf;fj;jpy; nkhjp vd; ngUe;jpw;F Kd;ghf tpGe;Jtpl;lhh;/”11. Therefore, a close scrutiny of evidence of two eyewitnesses examined by the claimants would indicate that the deceased also contributed to the accident. They clearly deposed that the deceased, who was proceeding in the third lane attempted to overtake 4th respondent/bus, which stopped in the regular bus stop. During the said course, he dashed against back side of the 4th respondent/bus and fell down on the right hand side (2nd lane). At that point of time, the appellant/bus was proceeding in the second lane, the rear wheel of the appellant/bus ran over the victim. Therefore, it is clear by the time the victim dashed against the 4th respondent/bus, the front wheel of the appellant/bus crossed the scene of occurrence and victim only fell near the rear wheel of the appellant/bus. Therefore, the primary negligence is on the part of the deceased. Ofcourse, had the driver of the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 2022appellant/bus proceeded slowly in the road near the bus stop, probably he could have averted the accident. Therefore, this Court feels it would be appropriate to fix 60% negligence on the victim and 40% negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant/bus. 12. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased was working as Technical Assistant in a company and earning Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident. However, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. 13. It is seen from Ex.P13, the deceased completed Diploma Course. However, the claimants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was gainfully employed in Private Company. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the date of accident and the fact the claimants have not produced any document to prove the employment of the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. In that case, the loss of dependency would be Rs.30,24,000/-. (Rs.15,000 x 1.4 x 12 x 18 x 2/3). 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 202214. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium etc., are affirmed as it is in line with the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the total compensation amount payable to the claimants would be Rs.31,74,000/-. Since this Court fixed 60% negligence on the part of the deceased after deducting contributory negligence, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,69,600/- (Rs.31,74,000 – 60%). Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-Sl.No.DescriptionCompensation awarded by the TribunalCompensation awarded by this CourtRemarks1.Loss of DependencyRs.18,14,400/-Rs.30,24,000/-Enhanced2.Loss of EstateRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-Confirmed3.Funeral ExpensesRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-Confirmed4.Loss of ConsortiumRs.1,20,000/-Rs.1,20,000/-ConfirmedTotalRs.19,64,400/-Rs.31,74,000/-EnhancedAmount to be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceasedRs.4,91,100/- (25%)Rs.19,04,400/- (60%)Contributory negligence on deceased enhancedTotalRs.14,73,000/-Rs.12,69,600/-Reduced8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 202215. In view of the discussions made earlier, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.12,69,600/- from Rs.14,73,300/-. The Appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.12,69,600/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition to the date of realisation, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Krishnagiri, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 16. The 1st respondent/wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. It is stated that the 3rd claimant father of the claimant died pending appeal and the 2nd respondent has been recorded as legal representative of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-mother of the deceased is entitled to withdraw the remaining amount of Rs.4,69,600/-. The Appellant/Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the balance amount together with accrued interest. The claimants are entitled to withdraw their proportionate shares by making formal application before the Tribunal.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 202217. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.14.03.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nodm10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 2022To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Krishnagiri.2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Road Transport Corporation Limited, (Salem), 12, Ramakrishna Road, Regional office, Dharmapuri.3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.971 of 2022S.SOUNTHAR, J.dmC.M.A.No. 971 of 2022 14.03.202512/12

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Motor Vehicles Act 1988