CMA/2657/2022 of The Managing Director Vs Vignesh on 2 September 2026

Common Judgment

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

CMA.No.2657/2022 is filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022, passed by the learned Special Sub Judge II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, in MCOP.No.431/2020. Cross Objection No.4/2023 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

CMA No. 2657 of 2022

Since both the Appeal as well as Cross Appeal arise out of one and the same judgment and decree and the issues raised herein are also one and the same, both the appeal and the cross objection are disposed of by this common judgment and decree.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Claims Tribunal.

The brief summary of the facts leading to the above appeal and cross appeal are that, on 27.12.2017, at 21.10 hours, while the claimant was riding his Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-30- AP-9524, on the left side of the road, on Sooramangalam-Mamangam Main Road, near Sooramangalam Railway Division Office and Saraswathi Vidyalaya School, the bus belonging to the respondent/Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-30- N-02027, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and coming in the opposite direction, hit against the claimant’s motorcycle causing the accident. Due to the impact of the collision, the claimant fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident, working as a building construction supervisor and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as salary. According to the claimant, after the accident, he was not able to attend to his normal work and therefore, he filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident.

CMA No. 2657 of 2022

The respondent/Transport Corporation denied all the allegations made in the claim petition. The respondent/Transport Corporation alleged that the negligence of the claimant alone resulted in the accident inasmuch as the accident took place near the junction near the Railway Division Office. The respondent further denied the manner of accident, age and income of the claimant. The respondent contended that the amount claimed by the claimant was excessive and speculative and hence, the claim petition deserved to be dismissed.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and filed 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. The respondent examined its bus driver as RW1, however, no documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the respondent. Ex.C1-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was filed as a Court document.

The Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, found that the negligence of the driver of the respondent’s bus resulted in the accident. The Claims Tribunal, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and based on the disability assessed at 55% by the Medical Board, in its Certificate-Ex.C1, awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,94,360/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the findings of the Claims Tribunal on negligence and quantum, the respondent / Transport Corporation has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

CMA No. 2657 of 2022

The claimant, not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, has preferred the Cross Objection.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation is that the Claims Tribunal failed to note that the accident occurred at a curve near the junction of the Railway Division Office and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant contributed to the accident by driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the curve of the junction. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was exorbitant and not commensurate with the nature of the disability sustained by the claimant.

The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal had categorically found negligence against the driver of the respondent on an appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore, in the absence of any perversity, the same was not to be interfered with. The learned counsel further submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- overlooking that the claimant was working as a building construction supervisor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that the income fixed by the Tribunal was erroneous and against the materials on record and therefore, the Cross Objection deserves to be allowed.

CMA No. 2657 of 2022

We have heard the learned counsels on both sides and also perused the materials placed before us.

Insofar as the issue of negligence is concerned, this Court finds that the accident admittedly took place at the curve of the Railway Division Office junction near Saraswathi Vidyalaya School. The claimant when examined as PW1, stated as follows:- ‘’…….tpgj;J ele;j ,lkhdJ. nryk; re;jpg;gpy; ,Ue;J ,Uk;ghis bry;Yk; rhiyapy ; uapy;nt otprdy; mYtyfj;jpw;F

mUnf

ele;jJ vd;why ; rhpjhd;/ ehd ; tpgj;J rkaj;jpy ; re;jpg;gpy ; (Rly junction) ,Ue;J ,Uk;ghis (steel palnt) nehf;fp brd;nwd;/ ngUe;jhdJ vdf;F vjph; jpirapy; te;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ tpgj;J ele;j rhiyahdJ rw;W tisthd rhiy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ re;jpg;gpy; ,Ue;J ,Uk;ghis nehf;fp

bry;Yk;nghJ rhiyapy ; ,lJg[wkhf tist[gFjpapy; bry;yntz;Lk; vd;why;. Rhpjhd;/ ehd; mt;thW

tist [ gFjpapy; rhiyapd ; ,lJg[wkhf bry;yhky;. Vjpnu te;j ngUe;jpd ; kPJ ehnd nkhjp tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpf;bfhz;nld;

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 vd;why;. rhpay;y/ ehd ; tpgj;J rkaj;jpy ; tPl;ow;F brd;Wbfhz;oUe;njd; vd;why;. Rhpjhd;/ ehd; tpiuthf tPl;ow;F bry;yntz;Lk; vd;gjhy;.

VdJ

,Urf;fu thfdj;jpid

ntfkhft[k;. ftdf;Fiwthft[k ; Xl;o tpgj;jpid Vw;gLj;jpf;bfhz;nld; vd;why;. rhpay;y/ ngUe;jpy ; Kfg;g [ tpsf;F ,Ue;Jk; mij

ftdpf;fhky ; tpgj;jpid Vw;gLj;jpf;bfhz;nld ; vd;why;. rhpay;y/////’’

From the evidence of PW1 it is clear that the accident had occurred at the curve near the junction. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the claimant exercised caution while passing the junction. The fact that there was a head on collision between the motorcycle and the bus shows that the claimant has contributed to the accident. Had the claimant driven the motorcycle at a reasonable speed and with caution, at the curve of the junction, the accident may not have happened. Under the circumstances, we find the claimant guilty of contributory negligence and therefore, apportion the negligence in the ratio 20 : 80, i.e., 20% on the claimant and 80% on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus.

As regards the quantum of compensation, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the income assessed by the

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 Tribunal is on the lower side. The assertion of the claimant that before the accident, he was working as Building construction supervisor in a Construction company and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, is not controverted by the respondent by leading any contra evidence. No doubt, the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his income. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we are of the view that for a Supervisor, the reasonable income would be Rs.12,000/- per month. We therefore find that the income fixed at Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal is erroneous and cannot be sustained. We fix the income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/-. Since the claimant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident, 40% of the income is added to his future prospects. The multiplier 17 appropriate to the age of the claimant is applied and the loss of future income on account of permanent disability is fixed as follows: Notional income fixed by this Court - Rs.12,000/- [Add] 40% for future prospects - Rs. 4,800/- ------------------- Rs.16,800/- Applying multiplier 17, the total income is arrived at:16,800x12x17

- Rs.34,27,200/- 55% of Rs.34,27,200/- towards disability

- Rs.18,84,960/- [Less] 20% towards contributory negligence- Rs.3,76,992/- ------------------- Loss of future income Rs.15,07,968/- -------------------

CMA No. 2657 of 2022

Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No, Conventional Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

Loss of future income 12,56,640/- 15,07,968/-

Pain and Suffering 55,000/- 55,000/-

Loss of livelihood 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-

Medical Expenses 7,56,720/- 7,56,720/-

Transportation Charges 50,000/- 50,000/-

Nutrition expenses 25,000/- 25,000/-

Attendant charges 50,000/- 50,000/-

Damages to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/- Total 22,94,360/- 25,45,688/-

The appellant is directed to deposit the modified Award amount of Rs.25,45,688/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight only], within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the web order, if not already deposited. The claimant, on such deposit by the appellant, is permitted to withdraw the

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 same by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal. The Transport Corporation is entitled to withdraw the balance amount if any.

In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are partly allowed and the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal dated 11.03.2022, made in MCOP.No.431/2020, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP CMA No. 2657 of 2022 To

1. The Special Sub Judge-II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.

2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai. CROS.OBJ No. 4 of 2023 To Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, No. 12, Ramakrishna Salai, Salem - 636 007.

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2657 of 2022 AND CROS.OBJ NO. 4 OF 2023,CMP NO. 20727 OF 2022 02-09-2026

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-09-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA CMA No. 2657 of 2022 CNR:{HCMA011424242022} AND CROS.OBJ NO. 4 OF 2023,CMP NO. 20727 OF 2022 The Managing Director No. 11, Ramakrishna Road, TNSTC Salem Ltd., Salem - 636 007. ..Appellant(s) Vs Vignesh S/o. Dhanapal , No. 3/29, Mariyappan Kovil Street, Magnesite Mines, Zahir Kaminayakkanpatti, Burn and Co. Post, Salem - 636 302. ..Respondent(s) CROS.OBJ No. 4 of 2023 CNR:{HCMA010063712023} Vignesh S/o. Dhanapal , No. 3/29, Mariyappan Kovil Street, Magnesite Mines, Zahir Kaminayakkanpatti, Burn and Co. Post, Salem Town, Salem District- 636

302. ..Appellant(s) Vs Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, No. 12, Ramakrishna Salai, Salem - 636 007. ..Respondent(s) CMA No. 2657 of 2022 To set aside the Judgement and decree passed in MCOP No.431 of

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 2020 passed by Honble Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, II Salem on 11.03.2022 and thus render justice. CROS.OBJ No. 4 of 2023 To against the decree and judgment in MCOP No. 431 of 2020 on the file of Special Subordinate Judge No.2, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem dated 11.03.2022. CMA No. 2657 of 2022 For Appellant(s): M/s. D. Nitin For Respondent(s): M/s.R.Navaneetha Krishnan For Sole Respondent

Order

(Order of the Court was made by P.T.Asha J.)

Today, the above cases are listed under the caption ‘’For Being Mentioned’’, at the instance of the Court.

This Court, vide judgment dated 02.09.2026, had partly allowed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection. However, it is seen that in paragraph No.16 of the judgment, the observations regarding ‘’percentage of interest’’ and the ‘’withdrawal of the accrued interest’’ is found to be omitted due to inadvertence.

Hence, paragraph No.16 of the judgment dated 02.09.2026, is as follows:- ‘’16.The appellant is directed to deposit the modified Award amount of Rs.25,45,688/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight only], along with 7.5% interest per annum, within a period

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the web order, if not already deposited. The claimant, on such deposit by the appellant, is permitted to withdraw the modified Award amount along with accrued interest, by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal. The Transport Corporation is entitled to withdraw the balance amount if any.’’

Registry is directed to incorporate the above paragraph as Paragraph No.16 in the judgment dated 02.09.2026, and issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 AP Internet: Yes To

1. The Special Subordinate Judge-II Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.

2. The Managing Director No.11, Ramakrishna Road, TNSTC Salem Ltd., Salem 636007.

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

CMA No. 2657 of 2022 P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2657 of 2022 AND CROS.OBJ NO. 4 OF 2023, CMP NO. 20727 OF 2022 22-09-2026