Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1074 (MAD)

Managing Director v. Anandhi

2014-06-02

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. Finding of negligence, fixed on the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-32N-3355, is challenged on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider his evidence and the defence put forth by the Corporation. According to the Corporation, that on 07.02.2011, when the bus, bearing Registration No.TN-32N-3355, Route No.151A, was on a trip to Villupuram to Chennai, near Mariamman Temple bus stop, a pedestrian, in a drunken condition, came from right to left direction i.e., East to West direction, and fell on the road. Though the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus swerved the same to his left and applied sudden brakes, the pedestrian's head hit on the road, and due to the injuries, he died on the spot. According to the Corporation, the bus did not contact the pedestrian. 2. Per contra, it is the case of the 1st respondent -widow that when the deceased was walking along with his wife, from East to West direction, on Chennai to Trichy Road, near Villupuram Maltheru Mariamman Temple Bus stop, the abovesaid bus driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Arunkumar @ Arun, who died on the spot. According to the Claimants, as a Contractor of painting works, the deceased earned Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove the manner of the accident, she has examined herself as PW1. Ex.P.1-07.02.2011-First Information Report in Crime No.68 of 2011, on the file of Villupuram Police Station, registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, has been marked. Apart from the above, the 1st respondent widow has also marked Ex.P.2-Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.P.3-Certificate of Registration for the bus, Ex.P.4-Driving license and Ex.P.5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Though the Transport Corporation has taken a defence that the deceased was under intoxication and crossed the road, and thus invited the accident, no document has been filed by the Transport Corporation to prove that the deceased was under intoxication. 3. On the other hand, the oral testimony of the respondents is to the effect that when the deceased was walking along with his Wife, the Transport Corporation bus, in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver, dashed against him. The wheel ran over the head of the deceased. The oral testimony of PW1 and an eye witness to the accident, is duly corroborated by Ex.P.1-First Information Report. The wheel ran over the head of the deceased. The oral testimony of PW1 and an eye witness to the accident, is duly corroborated by Ex.P.1-First Information Report. The defence of the said Transport Corporation has not been proved. Though the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Villupuram, has questioned the finding of the Claims Tribunal on the ground inter alia that it has failed to advert the testimony of RW1 that the deceased suddenly crossed the road, in a drunken state, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding of negligence fixed against the driver. There is no perversity in the finding. Hence, it is confirmed. 4. On the aspect of quantum of compensation, it could be seen from the award that though PW1, widow, has claimed that at the time of Accident, as a Contractor of painting works, the deceased earned Rs.15,000/- per month, but, no document has been filed to prove the same. Having regard to the age of the deceased 27 years, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.6,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. 5. In Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2011 (2) TNMAC 190 SC, a sum of Rs.4,500/-has been claimed as monthly wages for the deceased, stated to be a Coolie, the Claims Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. However, when the matter was taken on appeal, the Supreme Court having regard to the wages of a labourer, during the relevant period (2004 - between Rs.100 to Rs.150/- per day) found fault with the Tribunal for reducing the claim from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- and determined the income at Rs.4,500/-. 6. A sum of Rs.4,000/- alone has been taken into consideration by the Claims Tribunal, to compute the loss of contribution to the family, comprising of 4 persons, including two minor children. To provide food, shelter, health and for basic amenities, such as, payment of electricity charges, etc., one may have to incur considerable expenditure. 7. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent was just 23 years old. The deceased is survived by two minor children, aged about 3 years and 2 years, respectively. To provide food, shelter, health and for basic amenities, such as, payment of electricity charges, etc., one may have to incur considerable expenditure. 7. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent was just 23 years old. The deceased is survived by two minor children, aged about 3 years and 2 years, respectively. As rightly observed by the Claims Tribunal, the 1st respondent has lost her consortium and the companionship of her husband at the age of 23 years. Perusal of the award also indicates that the Claims Tribunal has not granted any compensation for transportation of the Corpse, from the hospital and return home. There is no award for funeral expenses and damages to clothes. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head loss of consortium, though appears to be likely on the higher side, the excess amount, if any, can be adjusted against other heads. Therefore, this Court is of the view that excess compensation awarded under the head, loss of consortium, can be adjusted against the compensation for transportation, damages to clothes and funeral expenses. 8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is not inclined to differ from the finding of negligence. Quantum of compensation appears to be reasonable. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 9. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit already made in this Court, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.55 of 2011, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Villupuram, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st respondent wife is permitted to withdraw the share apportioned to her with proportionate accrued interests and costs, by making necessary application. The share of the minors/2 and 3 respondents shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks in fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme initially for a period of three years. The interest accruing on the share of the minors/2 and 3 respondents shall be paid to the mother of the minor, the 1st respondent, once in three months, till they attain majority.