1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.975 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.4 of 2011 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Division III represented by its Managing Director, Karaikudi. .. Appellant Vs. Indirani .. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 20.10.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Royce Immanuel For Respondent .. Mr.D.Senthil JUDGMENT The award dated 20.10.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has awarded a sum of Rs.3,88,200/- by way of compensation. With regard to liability fixed upon the appellant/respondent and also with regard to quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has challenged the award in question on the following grounds: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (a) At the time of accident, the deceased and two others have travelled on the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-D- 9775 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed contributory negligence to an extent of 20% upon the rider of the said motor cycle and therefore the quantum of contributory negligence fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is erroneous. (b) The deceased viz., Balamurugan has attained 25 years of age at the time of accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,300/- and under the said circumstances, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is erroneous. 5. It is an admitted fact that after accident one Rathinavel has given the complaint in question and the same has been registered in Crime No.177 of 2006 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it has been clearly stated that at the time of accident, the deceased Balamurugan has driven the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-D-9775 and two other persons have travelled on it as pillion riders. Therefore it is clear that the deceased has also contributed his negligence for the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, has fixed 20% upon the deceased. Therefore the contributory negligence fixed upon the deceased by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is quite correct and the same need not be interfered with. 6. As stated earlier, the deceased has attained 25 years of age at the time of accident. Considering his age, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,300/- per mensum and after deducting one-third, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.2,200/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 17 multiplier. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded some amounts in respect of other heads and in aggregation, it has fixed Rs.4,48,800/- and after deducting 20% contributory negligence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,88,200/-. 7. Considering the age of the deceased and also considering the quantum of monthly income fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not excessive and the same is not liable to be modified and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. +1cc to Mr.Royce Emmanuel, S. Sr.No.32142 +1cc to Mr.D.Senthil Advocate Sr.No.31973 smn ssk/11.10.2011 /4c-3p/- C.M.A(MD)No.975 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.4 of 2011 19.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/