BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
Vasanthi & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Correspondent, Sri Karunai Ragavaji Vidhyalaya Nursery & Primary School, Karur & Another – Respondents
C.M.A. (MD)Nos. 220 & 232 of 2020
Decided On : 15-03-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 173 - M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the negligence of the bus driver, contributory negligence of the deceased, and the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a claim petition for compensation for the death of Subbaiah in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was appealed for enhancement and modification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bus driver was negligent, but also attributed contributory negligence to the deceased. The court analyzed the evidence and determined the compensation to be paid.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the bus driver, contributory negligence of the deceased, and the assessment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that both the bus driver and the deceased contributed to the accident, and assessed the compensation based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The court dismissed one appeal and partly allowed the other, reducing the compensation amount.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation from Rs.16,31,520/- to Rs. 24,19,200/- by modifying the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 dated 20.07.2018.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Karur.)
Common Judgment:
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 dated 20.07.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of same order passed in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015, C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 is taken as the lead case and the word ''appellant'' will denote the claimants who are the appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 and the word ''respondents'' will denote the respondents in C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020. The appellants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015, claiming compensation for the death of one Subbaiya, in an accident that took place on 02.12.2014. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,31,520/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) as compensation. Against the award, the second respondent in the claim petition has filed C.M.A. (MD)No.232 of 2020 and the claimants has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 for enhancement of compensation.
3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 is as follows:
On 02.12.2014, at about 04.00 p.m., when the deceased Subbaiah was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-45-W-8741 keeping the left side of the Palayam to Trichy main road, near Kakkampatti bus stop, a bus bearing registration No.TN-47-AW-3306 was proceeding ahead of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and the respondent bus driver stopped the bus without giving any signal to the following vehicle and the deceased lost the control of the two wheeler and hit against the back side of the bus and he died on the spot. The petitioners 1 and 3 who were the pillion riders, sustained multiple injuries. The deceased was aged about 34 years. The deceased owned five acres of land and that he was engaged in agriculture and he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from agriculture and he was doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The petitioners are his dependants and they claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation.
4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows:
The first respondent''s driver was not having valid driving licence. The bus did not have valid permit or fitness certificate to ply on the road. The deceased was not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are all false. The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is false. It was the deceased, who rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without a driving licence and he lost control due to high speed, when he tried to overtake the bus and he invited the accident. The averment of the deceased was having five acres of land and engaged in agriculture and he was doing milk vending business and earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was false and the claim is excessive.
5. The first respondent remained ex parte. On the side of the claimants, one witness was examined and 12 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,31,520/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) as compensation to be paid by the se
The main legal point established is the assessment of contributory negligence and compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The judgment establishes the principle of contributory negligence and provides a detailed framework for calculating compensation in motor accident claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the application of legal principles to modify the compensation awarded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of contributory negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the assessment of compensation based on the evidence presented.
Proper evidence is essential to establish contributory negligence and dependency in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Triple riding alone does not constitute contributory negligence without specific evidence of negligence.
The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation calculation, emphasizing the lack of evidence for contributory negligence and the appropriateness of the awarded amount.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the deceased's income and the determination of notional income for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Motor Ve....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.