In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date : 12.12.2008 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Periyakaruppiah C.M.A. No: 2365 of 2003 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant/1st Respontent -vs- 1. Mrs. Rani 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2. Mohan 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIth Small Causes Court) Chennai, by its decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P. No: 3960 of 1997 dated 21.03.2002. For petitioner : Mr. A. Babu For 1st respondent : Mr. G. Perumal For 2nd respondent : NDW .. .. .. J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the award passed by the lower Court made in M.C.O.P. No: 3960 of 1997 dated 21.03.2002 preferred by the 1st respondent / Transport Corporation. 2. The brief facts stated by both parties before the lower Court are as follows :- “ (i) The son of the claimant and 2nd respondent were returning home from their work on 23.07.1997 at 7.00 p.m. while he was travelling in route No: 40 A in the Metropolitan transport Corporation bus. When the bus was moving near the Petrol Bunk in Gandhi Irwin Road, he was thrown out of the bus, got caught in the wheel of the bus and died. The bus TN 02 N 0307 belongs to the respondent transport Corporation. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that he is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responsible for the accident. Hence, the respondent Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation of a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-. (ii) The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. According to the 1st respondent, the accident happened when the deceased tried to alight from the moving bus at the Gandhi Irwin Road signal. The accident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased passenger. The 1st respondent also disputed the age, occupation and the income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. “ 3. The lower Court had come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent Transport Corporation and, therefore, had fixed the “No Fault Liability” and also awarded other compensation under different heads. Aggrieved by the said award of compensation, the Transport Corporation (1st respondent) has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would submit in his argument that the lower Court had come to the conclusion that the deceased person was solely responsible for the cause of accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport Corporation, but it had fixed not only the “No Fault Liability” and also awarded the compensation for the loss of estate, loss of life, mental agony and for funeral expenses which was computed to Rs.97,000/- as total compensation payable by the appellant which is not correct. He would further submit that when the Court has come to the conclusion of awarding compensation for “No Fault Liability”, it cannot award more than the sum mentioned in the statute and other heads of compensation cannot be awarded. Therefore, he would request the Court to reduce the excess compensation of Rs.47,000/- awarded by the lower Court and modify the award to a sum of Rs.50,000/- only towards “No Fault Liability” and thereby to allow the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / claimant would submit in his argument that there was no bar for awarding compensation apart from the quantum fixed for no fault liability under the statute, for the actual damages caused to the claimant and, therefore, the compensation need not either be modified or be reduced. He would further submit in his argument that the driver of the appellant transport Corporation was solely responsible for the accident as the documentary evidence would go to show that the driver and conductor of the bus had permitted the passengers including the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased to travel in the foot board and therefore, the accident had happened due to the negligence of the driver and conductor of the bus and it should have been decided as liable under the common liability against the appellant transport Corporation’s driver and conductor and the appellant Transport Corporation was vicariously liable for the compensation amount payable to the claimant. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides. 8. The lower Court had come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the cause of the accident and it was only the deceased who had invited the accident by climbing over the moving bus and got himself under the rear tyre of the said bus. Therefore, it had also decided that the claimant who is the mother of the deceased person was entitled only to a compensation under the head “No Fault Liability”. However, it had awarded an excess compensation of Rs.47,000/- towards funeral expenses, mental agony, loss of life and for loss of Estate. The case of the appellant Transport Corporation is that the statutory liability for a deceased person under No Fault Liability was only a sum of Rs.50,000/- and not more. It is an admitted fact that the claimant did not prefer any separate appeal against the said finding of the lower Court nor any cross objection in this appeal. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court that the deceased person was responsible for the cause of the accident and the driver of the appellant transport corporation was not rash and negligent in his driving has become final and it cannot be questioned in the appeal preferred by the appellant Corporation. 9. Similarly the finding of the lower Court that the claimant is entitled to only a compensation under “No Fault Liability” to a sum of Rs.50,000/- only is also not agitated by the claimant in a separate appeal or cross appeal. Under these circumstances, it is to be found as to whether the grant of compensation more than the "No Fault Liability" for a sum of Rs.47,000/- could be sustained. According to "No Fault Liability" is concerned, it is a fixed sum of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act where an accident had caused the death of a person and the rash and negligence was not attributable on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, any sum exceeding the said sum of Rs.50,000/- payable under "No Fault Liability" is not sustainable when the Transport Corporation driver was not responsible for the cause of the accident. Therefore, the lower Court ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only towards compensation payable to the claimant. However, it had awarded a sum of Rs.97,000/- as compensation payable to the claimant which is not in accordance with law. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and correct the same. Accordingly, the award passed by the lower Court is modified to an extent of Rs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 50,000/- with subsequent interest as awarded by the lower Court. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gp To The Vith Small Causes Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Chennai, Copy To The Record Keeper VIR Section, High Court, Madras +1 cc to Mr.G.Perumal, Advocate, SR.No.69623 C.M.A. No: 2365 of 2003 co(ssn) bmd-09/02/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/