1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A(MD)No.1260 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli. .....Appellant/R2 Versus 1.Karpagalakshmi 2.Minor.Rakshitha 3.Minor.Abinav Viswanath 4.Ponnammal 5.Viswanathan .... Respondents 1 to 5/Claimants [Minors R2 and R3 represented through mother and natural guardian, the 1st respondent Karpagalakshmi] 6.Soundarapandian .. 6th Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER :Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.2007 and made in MCOP No.208 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Sivagangai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Baskaran For R4 & R5 : Mr.R.Subramaniam JUDGMENT Challenge is made in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to the award, dated 08.06.2007 and made in MCOP No.208 of 2004 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Sivagangai. 2.The 2nd respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein, whereas, the claimants 1 to 5 are the respondents 1 to 5 and the 1st respondent in the claim petition, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, is the 6th respondent herein. 3.The respondents 1 to 5 had made a claim before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Sivagangai, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Anantharaman, who is none other than the husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 and 3 and son of the respondents 4 and 5, in a road traffic accident, which was taken place on 03.05.2004. at 9.a.m. near Munneerpallam Railway Gate located at Papanasam to Madurai main Road, when he was thrown out of the rear entrance of the passenger bus bearing registration No.TN29-N-1209, in which he was working as a 'Conductor' at the time of accident. 4.The respondents 1 to 5 had alleged in the claim petition that on 03.05.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., when the above said bus was nearing Munneerpallam Railway Gate, the deceased was tendering cash balance to a passenger. When the 6th respondent, who was on the steering wheel, had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 swerved the bus coupled with hectic speed to negotiate a curve on his right side, the deceased was thrown out of the bus, driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and as result of which, he had sustained injuries over his head and subsequently, he was removed to hospital, but succumbed to injuries, while he was on treatment on the same day. 5.It appears from the averments of the claim petition that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of occurrence and was earning a sum of Rs.7,718.23/-. Keeping in view of the above facts, the claimants had claimed Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation. 6.This was objected to by the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation on two grounds:- (i).That on 31.03.2002, the deceased Anantharaman, had sustained injuries over his head in a road traffic accident, involving a motor cycle and he had been taking treatment in various hospitals for his head injury; and (ii)That on 03.05.2004, at the time of accident, when he was writing invoice by standing on the rear side foot board of the bus, he had lost his balance as well as holding and fallen down from the moving bus and therefore, on his own negligence, during the course of his employment, he himself had invited the accident. 7.This contention was returned down by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ultimately, awarded a sum of Rs.6,68,605/- to the claimants directing the 2nd respondent to pay this amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. 8.Heard Mr.S.Baskaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr..R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. 9.The 5th respondent, Mr.Viswanathan, who is the father of the deceased was examined as PW1 and he has not spoken about the accident, but spoken about the family circumstances as well as about their dependency on the income of his son. PW2, Mr.Andiappan was one of the co-passengers, at the relevant period. He has given clear account about the rashness and negligence on the part of the 6th respondent, who is the driver of the bus. 10.In the First Information Report, it is stated by PW2 that at the time of accident, the deceased Anantharaman, who was functioning as 'Conductor' in that bus, had been tendering cash balance to a passenger, who was sitting on the back seat. When the bus was turned towards northern side, while negotiating a curve in a hectic speed, the deceased was thrown out from the back entry of the bus and as a result of which, he had sustained injuries over his head, right shoulder and left hand. He has also spoken that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased Anantharaman was removed to Tirunelvelli Medical College Hospital in the same bus, wherein he had succumbed to injuries. 11.With regard to rashness and negligence, the 6th respondent herein was examined as RW1. On a harmonious reading of the testimonies of PW2 as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 well as RW1 evidence, the learned Tribunal had discarded the evidence of the 6th respondent (RW1) saying that the evidence of RW1 is not able to be accepted. 12.With regard to quantum, though the pay slip under Ex.P9 was produced to show that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.7,718.23/- towards his monthly salary, the learned Tribunal had taken the net salary i.e. Rs.5,364/- to assess the quantum of compensation. Since, the deceased was aged about 43 years, at the time of occurrence, the multiplier of 15 was applied in this case and accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,68,605/- was arrived at towards the dependency of the family. Besides this, towards funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/- and towards consortium and loss of love and affection, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents 1 to 5 and these amount do not require any interference. 13.It is significant to note here that as per the latest development in the accident claims, the monthly gross salary of the deceased can be taken into consideration to assess the quantum of compensation. But the learned tribunal had taken the net income of the deceased to calculate the quantum of compensation. In this connection, no objection was raised on the side of the claimants/respondents 1 to 5. Keeping in view of the above facts, this court finds that the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant does not have any force and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Sivagangai is confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance of compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District Judge, Sivagangai. +1. CC to Mr.S.Baskaran, Advocate, SR.No. 43582 +1. CC to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.No. 43832 er C.M.A(MD)NO.1260 of 2011 14.12.2011 TR : 25.09.2012 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/