Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR AND M. GOVINDARAJ, JJ.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
K. Pushpa and Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 1184 of 2017 and CMP No. 5896 of 2016
Decided On : 10-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Lokesh
For the Respondents: Mr. Amar D. Pandiya
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of preponderance of probability in establishing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act and the consideration of the circumstances of the deceased's family members in determining compensation.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident - S. MANIKUMAR, J. - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident between a motorcycle and a transport corporation bus. The deceased's legal representatives filed a claim for compensation, alleging negligence on the part of the bus driver. The Claims Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded compensation. The appeal challenged the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the finding of negligence against the bus driver and reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The court directed the appellant to deposit the revised compensation amount with interest and costs to the tribunal.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of negligence in the accident and the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to infer culpability from the circumstances in motor accident cases and highlighted the principle of preponderance of probability in establishing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also considered the age and circumstances of the deceased's family members in adjusting the compensation awarded.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the finding of negligence against the bus driver, reduced the quantum of compensation, and directed the appellant to deposit the revised compensation amount with interest and costs to the tribunal.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Caveator is on record. With the consent of both parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. In the accident, which occurred on 19.07.2012, about 12.10 hours, involving a motorcycle bearing Regn. No. TN-05 X 4804 and a transport corporation bus bearing Regn. No. TN21N1179, pillion rider K. Appan Raj, aged about 25 years, stated to be a driver in M/s. Enrich Foods, Chennai and earned Rs.15,000/- per month, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.142/KM1/2012 has been registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus on the file of K-10 Koyambedu Traffic Investigation Police Station, Chennai.
3. Contending inter alia that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN21-N-1179 and due to the sudden demise of K.Appan Raj, breadwinner, respondents/legal representatives, filed MCOP No.4551 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [II Small Causes Court], Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads.
4. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division III, Kancheepuram, disputed the manner of accident and negligence attributed to the driver of the bus. According to the Corporation, while the bus was on Poonamallee High Road, about 12.10 hours, near Mettukulam Police Booth, a motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-05 X 4804, was coming behind the bus. The motorcyclist suddenly tried to overtake the bus and in the process, hit the center median, lost his balance, and then the handle bar of the motor cycle touched the right side of the bus. In the impact, motorcyclist lost his balance, fell down on the right side of the road. Pillion rider fell on the left side of the road. In the result, pillion rider sustained injuries. Transport corporation further submitted that the motorcyclist was not wearing helmet. Thus, they disputed the manner of the accident and consequently, liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above Transport Corporation disputed the age, avocation, income and compensation claimed under various heads.
5. Before the tribunal, mother of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2 is stated to be the eye witness. PW3, is stated to be an employee in M/s. Enrich Foods. Ex.P1, Copy of FIR, Ex.P2, Charge Sheet, Ex.P3, Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P4, Death Certificate, Ex.P5, Legal-heir certificate, Ex.P6, Driving Licence of Deceased, Ex.P7. Authorization Letter, Ex.P8, Employer related documents, Ex.P9, Employment of the deceased related documents, Ex.P10, Pay slip of the deceased and Ex.P11, Authorisation letter given to PW3, have been filed by the respondents/claimants.
6. RW1, is the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. No document has been filed on behalf of the transport corporation.
7. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal held that RW1, driver of the transport corporation bus was negligent in causing the accident. Accepting the avocation of the deceased, driver, based on the testimony of the PW3, Ex.P7 Authorization letter, Ex.P8, Employer related documents, Ex.P9, Documents relating to the deceased, Ex.P10, pay slip of the deceased and Ex.P11, authorization letter given to PW3, Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/-.
8. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1(SC), Tribunal added 50% of the income under the head future prospects and fixed Rs.18,750/- for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. Deceased was a bachelor, therefore 50% deduction was made. He was aged 25 years and following Sarla Varma's case [cited supra], tribunal applied 18' multiplier and
