Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI
The Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri
Versus
Janardhanam and others
C.M.A. Nos. 1425 to 1428 of 1995 and C.M.P. No. 16113 to 16115 of 1995 and C.M.P. No. 19162 to 19165 of 1999
Decided on: 03-01-2000
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - M.C.O.P.Nos.805-808 of 1989 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the negligence in a motor accident case and the compensation awarded under various heads. The court analyzed the evidence and applied the principles laid down in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra & others, 1996 (2) L.W. 226 to calculate the compensation. The court also exercised discretionary power under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to award interest from the date of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple appeals against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, North Arcot Ambedkar District Vellore. The appeals were related to a motor accident involving an ambassador car and a bus, resulting in injuries and fatalities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, and the appellant Corporation was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The court also analyzed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and made modifications.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of negligence and liability in the motor accident case, along with the calculation of compensation under various heads.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of witnesses, principles of dependency calculation, and the application of multipliers to determine the compensation. The court also exercised discretionary power to award interest from the date of the petition.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed one appeal and dismissed the others. The claimants were entitled to claim interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the respective petitions.
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.
1. These Appeals have been filed against the common judgment in M.C.O.P.Nos.805 of 1989, 806 of 1989, 807 of 1989 and 808 of 1989 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, North Arcot Ambedkar District Vellore. Hence, all these Appeals can be disposed of by the common judgment:
2. C.M.A. No. 1425 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P. No. 808 of 1989. The claimants in the said petition are the widow of the deceased Shanmugham and their children.
3. C.M.A. No. 1426 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P. No. 805 of1989. The claimant in the said petition is none else than the wife of the deceased Shanmugham. Her claim for compensation is in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the accident.
4. C.M.A. No. 1427 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P. No. 806 of 1989, wherein the owner of the vehicle, viz., an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TDI 3939 claimed compensation for the damage caused to the said car.
5. C.M.A. No. 1428 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O. P. No. 807 of 1989. The wife of the driver of the ambassador car and their children are the claimants in the said petition.
6. The case of the petitioners in the M.C.O.Ps., is that the family of Shanmugham after attending the funeral of the elder brother (of Shanmugham) at Vellore, returning to Coimbatore in the ambassador car bearing Registration No.TDI 3939. The said car was driven by the driver by name A.Davadoss and it was proceeding from East to West. When the said car was nearing Chinnatheri Bridge, Vettavalam, Vellore, the bus bearing Registration No.TCB 8068, belonging to the appellant Corporation, which was coming in the opposite direction, and which was driven by the first respondent in the M.C.O.Ps in a rash and negligent manner without adhering to the traffic rules dashed against the car and smashed it. According to the appellant in the said accident the said Shanmugham succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 808 of 1989 and also the driver of the car, viz., Devadoss also sustained injuries. It is the further case of the petitioners in the M.C.O.Ps. the accident could have been avoided had the driver of the bus driven the bus, carefully adhering to the traffic rules. The specific case of the petitioners is that the accident occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver, who drove the bus bearing Registration No.TCB 8068.
7. The further case of the petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 808 of 1989 is that the deceased Shanmugham was not only one of the partners in three companies, viz., M/s. Guard Curing Company, M/s.Texcart Engineering Company and M/s.Devaki Textiles Company earning an income not less than Rs.4000 per month but also a hard worker. In view of the sudden demise of Shanmugham, who was the only bread winner of the family, the first petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 808 of 1989 has lost her husband and petitioners 2 to 7 in the said M.C.O.P. have lost their father. The further plea of the petitioner in M.C.O.P. No.808 of 1989 is that in the family of the deceased Shanmugham the life expectancy is 75 years. The petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 808 of 1989 though made a claim of Rs. 17, 00, 800 restricted it to only Rs. 12, 00, 000.
8. Annai Sathiya Transport Corporation, the appellant herein resisted the claim, contending that the accident took place only in view of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said ambassador car viz., Devadoss. It has been specifically contended that the driver of the bus, bearing Registration No.TCB 8068 drove the bus strictly adhering to the traffic rules. That being so, the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 808 of 1989 would not be entitled to any compensation. There is a specific contention that even assuming that the claimants would be entitled for compensation considering the age of the deceased and his monthly income, their claim of Rs.12 lakhs is ver
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
