CMA/1066/2023 of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs KALAISELVI on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Subordinate Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Rasipuram in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2018 dated 23.01.2023 on the grounds of liability and quantum of compensation.

2. The respondent/claimant is the mother of the deceased Uma Maheswari. On 28.02.2018, at about 10.15 a.m., when the deceased was travelling in a Government bus bearing Regn.No.TN-38-N-3202 belonging to the respondent-Transport Corporation, by standing in front footsteps to attend her office, near Vadamadurai to Pannimadai Chettiyar Oil Mill, the driver of the bus applied sudden break, due to which, she fell down inside the bus and sustained grievous injuries on her head. Immediately, she was admitted in the V.G. Hospital at Thudiyalur and thereafter, she was admitted in the K.G. Hospital Coimbatore for further treatment, where she died on 02.03.2018. Thereafter, the claimant had filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- before the

Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2018 for the death of the deceased, who died on 02.03.2018 due to the accident happened on 28.02.2018.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined 3 witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 22 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the side of the respondent, they have examined 1 witness viz., R.W.1 and no documents have been marked. Apart from that, 6 witness side documents were marked as Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.6. After adjudication, the Tribunal had partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,96,527/- as compensation under various heads. Aggrieved by the said order, the Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-transport corporation submitted that the deceased, who was travelling in the bus, tried to get down from the slowly moving bus through the front foot board using her cell phone, thereby, the accident has happened, from which, it is clear that due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, the accident had happened, and therefore, the entire negligence ought to have been fixed against the deceased, however, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus, which requires to be interfered with. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 50%, since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the compensation awarded under the other heads are on the higher side and the same requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that by considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, which does not require any interference. Further, he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are just and reasonable compensation, which also does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, on 28.02.2018, at about 10.15 a.m., when the deceased was traveling in a Government bus bearing Regn.No.TN-38- N-3202 belong to the Transport Corporation, near Vadamadurai to Pannimadai Chettiyar Oil Mill, the driver of the bus applied sudden break, due to which, she fell down inside the bus and sustained grievous injuries on her head, and thereafter, she died on 02.03.2018.

8. A perusal of the entire papers including the award passed by the Tribunal below would show that the respondent/claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 and one Paul Chinnappan as P.W.3, who is an eye- witness to the accident. They have spoken about the negligence on the part of the bus of the appellant/Transport Corporation, which has resulted in the accident. That apart, the FIR has also been lodged only against the driver of the bus. In order to prove the negligence on the driver, the respondent/claimant has marked FIR as Ex.P.1 and Section Alteration

Report as Ex.P.2. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with reference to negligence does not require any reconsideration.

9. Now, coming to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the main grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 50%, since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of her death. Therefore, this Court is not interfering with the notional income fixed by the Tribunal. Hence, by accepting the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.64,277/- and the annual income of the deceased at Rs.7,71,324/- and adding future prospects at 50%, as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the total annual income is quantified at Rs.11,56,986/-. Since the deceased comes under the income slab of Income above Rs.10,00,000/-, the appropriate income tax rates is Rs.1,25,000/- + 30% of the amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,72,096/-. After deducting the said income tax amount of Rs.1,72,096/-, the annual income of the deceased is quantified at Rs.9,84,890/-. Deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased, since the deceased was a bachelor, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.4,92,445/- and the deceased being aged about 34 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 16 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.4,92,445/- * 16 = Rs.78,79,120/-, which is worked out as follows:- Loss of Income Amount (in Rs.) Notional income (Per month) 64,277 Annual income (Rs.64,277/- x 12) 7,71,324 Add: Future Prospects (Rs.7,71,324/- x 50%) 3,85,662 11,56,986 Less : Income tax (Rs.1,25,000/- + 30% of the amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-) 1,72,096 9,84,890 Less: Personal expenses (50%) Rs.9,84,890/- x 50%) 4,92,445 Multiplier

Total 78,79,120

10. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate; Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.44,000/- towards loss of filial consortium; Rs.1,10,039/- towards medical expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation. This Court finds that the compensation awarded under the heads loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of filial consortium and medical expenses are just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. However, insofar as the compensation awarded towards transportation, this Court is of the view that the same is on the lower side and accordingly, the same is enhanced to a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

11. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:- Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Amount in Rs.) Loss of Dependency 1,05,05,488/- 78,79,120/- (reduced) Loss of Estate 16,500/- 16,500/- Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- Loss of Filial Consortium 44,000/- 44,000/- Medical Expenses 1,10,039/- 1,10,039/- Transportation 4,000/- 10,000/- (enhanced) Total 1,06,96,527/- 80,76,159/-

12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified, reducing the compensation amount from Rs.1,06,96,527/- to Rs.80,76,159/-. The Appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2018 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the share of the respondent/claimant directly to her bank account, through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. sp To The Subordinate Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Rasipuram. C.M.A.No.1066 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.10044 of 2023 12-10-2026