SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 4195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
R. Subbiah, J. Nisha Banu, JJ.
Managing Director, TNSTC – Appellant
Versus
Jamuna Rani – Respondent
C.M.A.(MD)Nos. 543 of 2014 and 206 of 2016 and M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 10-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. P. Prabhakaran, Advocate, for the Appellant in C.M.A.(MD) No. 543 of 2014 and Respondents in C.M.A.(MD) No. 206 of 2016; Mr. G. Karnan, Advocate, for the Respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No. 543 of 2014 and Appellants in C.M.A.(MD) No. 206 of 2016

Headnote:

Claimants before Tribunal is that deceased drove his type load vehicle bearing and stopped same Bye-pass Road, situated on and after switching on the parking light, both the deceased and one , who travelled along with the deceased in the vehicle, alighted from the van, came to the rear side of the vehicle and opened the rear side door of the van - Then, they were engaged in unloading the goods from the van - At that time, a Transport Corporation bus , which came from north to south direction on the said road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the front side of the van, due to which the deceased and who were unloading the goods in the rear side of the vehicle, sustained serious injuries and the deceased died on the spot - Claim of the appellants/claimants was resisted by the respondent Transport Corporation by contending that on the date of the accident, the bus was driven by its driver by observing Motor Vehicles Rules in a careful manner at a slow speed - At that time, another vehicle, which came from the opposite direction in a hectic speed and rash and negligent manner, crossed the median line and came to the wrong side of the road – Held, Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, this Court is of view that amount awarded by Tribunal under the other heads viz., Loss of consortium and Loss of love and affection are very meagre - Hence, amount awarded by Tribunal under head of "Loss of Consortium" to the first claimant is enhanced - Tribunal under the head of "Loss of Love and Affection" in respect of the claimants is enhanced - Amount awarded by the Tribunal under head of "funeral expenses" appears to be reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed - Consequently, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced - Tribunal is directed to deposit their respective share in any Nationalised bank, till they attain majority and on such deposit, the first claimant, who is the mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued therein once in three months for the upkeep and maintenance of the minor claimants – Ordered Accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

Both the appeals have been filed as against the award dated 21.02.2014 made in M.C.O.P. No.167 of 2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge, Thanjavur.

2. C.M.A.(MD).No.543 of 2014 has been filed by the Transport Corporation questioning the entire liability fixed by the Tribunal on the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation bus as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. C.M.A.(MD).No.206 of 2016 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Since both the appeals have been filed against one and the same award, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in M.C.O.P.(MD).No.167 of 2011 and C.M.A.(MD).No.206 of 2016. The appellants/claimants 1 to 5 are the wife, minor son, minor daughter, mother and father of the deceased Srikanth @ Palanivel respectively.

6. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 14.10.2010 the deceased drove his 407 type load vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-51-Z-8716 and stopped the same at 01.15 a.m. near S.V.R. Shop, Ayyampettai Bye-pass Road, situated on Thanjavur - Kumbakonam Road and after switching on the parking light, both the deceased and one Rajamurthy, who travelled along with the deceased in the vehicle, alighted from the van, came to the rear side of the vehicle and opened the rear side door of the van. Then, they were engaged in unloading the goods from the van. At that time, a Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1685, which came from north to south direction on the said road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the front side of the van, due to which the deceased and Rajamurthy, who were unloading the goods in the rear side of the vehicle, sustained serious injuries and the deceased viz., Srikanth @ Pazhanivel died on the spot.

7. The claimants 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as against the Transport Corporation claiming a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs as compensation. The claim of the appellants/claimants was resisted by the respondent Transport Corporation by contending that on the date of the accident, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1685 was driven by its driver by observing the Motor Vehicles Rules in a careful manner at a slow speed. At that time, another vehicle, which came from the opposite direction in a hectic speed and rash and negligent manner, crossed the median line and came to the wrong side of the road. In order to avoid the accident, the driver of the bus slowed the bus and went on the left side of the road. While doing so, the bus hit the van bearing Registration No.TN-51-Z-8716 which was parked on the wrong side of the road, without switching on the parking light. In that process, the deceased, who was unloading the goods from the van, was hit by the bus and died on the spot. According to the respondent/Transport Corporation, the deceased himself invited the accident by parking the vehicle on the wrong side of the road. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident. Further, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Thus, the Transport Corporation sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the appellants/claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. One Ramar (PW2) was examined as eyewitness. One Mr.Chandrasekaran, who was the Marketing Executive of the Thanjavur District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., was examined as PW3, in order to prove the income of the deceased. On the side of the respondent Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top