CMA.No.3399 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

CMA.No.3399 of 2014

1.T.Ponnusamy

2.P.Parvathy

3.P.Menaka

... Appellants/Petitioners

Vs.

1.Rangasamy

2.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

(Kumbakonam Division) Ltd.,

Pillai Thanneerpandal,

Thirumayan Road,

Pudukottai - 622200.

...Respondents / Respondents

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act , 1988

for enhancement the compensation amount and fix the entire negligence on

the 1st respondent in the Judgment and Decree dated 22.08.2011 made in

MCOP No.200 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal/Principal District Court, Erode.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.3399 of 2014

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran

For Respondents : Mr.L.Ramanathan [R.2]

JUDGEMENT

The claimants are the appellants before this Court seeking an

enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Principal District Judge, Erode in MCOP No.200 of 2010.

2. The petitioners are the parents and sister of one Mr.P.Sankar @

Gowtham who had died in a road accident on 08.02.2009. The petitioner

had claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.17,70,000/-. It is their case that

the deceased who was aged about 22 years was working as a Field Officer

Sales and Business with Airtel Supreme Net Work, Perundurai Road, Erode,

drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-.

3. The 2nd respondent/Transport Corporation had filed a counter

denying the negligence as well as questioning the quantum of

compensation.

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.3399 of 2014

4. The Tribunal below on considering the evidence on record had

ultimately held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of both the 1st respondent/driver of the Transport Corporation's bus

and the deceased and the liability had been fixed in the ratio of 50:50 and

consequently, the 2nd respondent/Transport Corporation was made liable to

pay only 50% of the quantum awarded by the Tribunal i.e. 50% of

Rs.8,27,800 = Rs.4,13,900/-. The petitioners are aggrieved by the

inadequate compensation that has been granted by the Tribunal below and

have therefore filed this appeal as also the fixing of 50% liability on the

deceased.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners/appellants that despite filing Ex.P.6, salary certificate the

Tribunal has only adopted a notional income of Rs.4,600/-, though under

Ex.P.6, monthly salary of the appellant is shown as Rs.12,000/-. That apart,

the multiplier that has been adopted is only ‘14’, whereas the appropriate

multiplier is ‘18’. The learned counsel would further submit that no

amounts have been granted towards the future prospects. He would also

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.3399 of 2014

submit that the Tribunal has erred in fixing 50% of the liability on the

deceased who was in no way responsible for the accident.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation

would submit that Ex.P.6 appears to be created for the purpose of the case

and therefore, Court's reliance may not be placed upon the said document.

He would, however, fairly concede that the multiplier has been wrongly

adopted as '14' totally overlooking the age of the deceased. He would

submit that the Tribunal has rightly held the deceased to be liable for the

accident.

7. Heard both the counsels.

8. Ex.P.6 has been marked through P.W.3 who claimed to be a

Manager in the company in which the deceased was said to be working.

However, the witness has not been able to produce any document to show

that he was working so. That apart, the salary certificate which has been

printed at a letter head is not supported by attended documents like t