CMA/3159/2026 of Metropolitan Transport Coporation Limited Vs N. Renuka on 16 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

The Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal challenging thr Award of the Claims Tribunal, dated 06.06.2025, passed in MCOP.No.1009 of 2020, allowing the Claim Petition filed by the claimant.

The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Appeal.

The gist of the facts are as follows:- The wife and parents of the deceased Nagarajan, filed a Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.40 Lakhs for his death in a motor accident, which took place on 31.12.2019, at 22.00 hours. According to the claimants, the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a bus belonging to the appellant, bearing Regn.No.TN.01-N-7351, from Valasarawakkam to Porur. The claimants stated that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that while driving it in high speed, he applied the brakes suddenly causing the victim to fall on the bus engine bonnet and sustain grievous injuries. The deceased, subsequently succumbed to the injuries on 12.01.2020. The claimants stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 43 years and as Senior

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CMA No. 3159 of 2026

Assistant Director – cum – Television Director, was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. As the claimants lost the deceased who was the sole breadwinner of the family, they filed the claim petition seeking the aforesaid compensation.

The appellant filed a detailed counter, denying all the allegations and contentions raised in the claim petition. The appellant denied its negligence and stated that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident since he was under the influence of alcohol, speaking over mobile phone when the brakes were applied and as a result, he lost balance and fell on the engine bonnet. The appellant further denied the age, avocation and the income of the deceased and also the legal relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The appellant apart from relying on the aforesaid grounds, stated that the compensation claimed was exorbitant and speculative, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the same.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses and marked 20 documents. The respondent examined one witness and marked one document.

The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The Claims Tribunal further held that since the bus driver’s negligence resulted in the accident, the appellant, as the owner of the bus, was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. On

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CMA No. 3159 of 2026

the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,600/- and thereafter, applying the settled legal principles, awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,24,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal, the appellant has filed the above appeal.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal erred in its finding on negligence. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and had fallen on his own and even otherwise, the possibility of the deceased having died due to the minor injuries, was remote. Apart from the above ground, no other ground was agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant before us.

We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of RW1, the driver of the bus, who admitted to have applied the brakes suddenly, the charge sheet / Final Report, filed against him under Ex.P15 and the Postmortem Certificate-Ex.P6, issued by Sri Ramachandra Hospital, certifying that the deceased died due to the complications arising of the injuries from the left lower limb, held that the bus driver’s negligence resulted in the accident. The Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence in support of the appellant’s contention that the deceased was under the influence of

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CMA No. 3159 of 2026

alcohol at the time of the accident, rejected the appellant’s contention that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. Before us, the appellant has produced a copy of the Certificate issued by the Professor and Head, Department of Burns, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, in support of the contention that the deceased was in an inebriated state and aggressive at the time of the accident. We find that the certificate records that the deceased was travelling in the State Transport Corporation bus and was standing in the front line and fell over the engine chamber in front and suffered injuries to the left lower limb. The said Certificate was not marked before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, we are not inclined to rely on the said certificate since it has not been marked and proved in a manner known to law. By merely inserting the Certificate in the typed set of papers, the appellant cannot expect this Court to overturn the Tribunal’s finding on negligence. The Certificate not having been proved in a manner known to law, we are not disposed to rely on it. We find that RW1, in his evidence, admitted to have applied the brakes suddenly which caused the deceased to fall on the engine bonnet. The evidence of RW1 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.P15, the Final Report, would clearly establish that the negligence of the bus driver, resulted in the accident. The Postmortem Report, Ex.P6, of the Ramachandra Hospital, reveals that the deceased died due to complications arising out

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CMA No. 3159 of 2026

of the injuries sustained by him to his left lower limb. Under the factual matrix of the case, we find absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Claims Tribunal on negligence.

Since no other issue was agitated before us, we find no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award dated 06.06.2025 made in MCOP No.1009 of 2020 by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, is confirmed. The appellant/Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, along with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the web order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest, as per the apportionment directed by the Tribunal, by filing appropriate petition before the Claims Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CMA No. 3159 of 2026

To

1. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )

CMA No. 3159 of 2026

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 3159 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 24445 OF 2026 16-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )