CMA(MD)/963/2023 of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs PUNITHAVATHI on 2 November 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellant/Transport Corporation, being the sole respondent in M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2023, challenging the award dated 01.11.2022 passed in the said claim petition and the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2020 have also filed the Cros.Obj(MD).No.36 of 2023, for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.604 of 2020 are the dependants of the deceased Sundaram. According to the claimants, on 13.10.2009, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the appellant-Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3502. He was standing near the front door of the bus. When the bus was proceeding on the Tiruchirappalli to Ariyalur Road, a cyclist suddenly crossed the road, on account of which the driver applied the brake suddenly. Due to the sudden braking, the deceased fell from the front portion of the bus, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

2.2. In connection with the accident, an FIR was registered in Crime No.468

of 2019. The claimants thereafter filed the claim petition contending that the deceased was working as a fitter in Kothari, Sugars and chemicals ltd., Kattur and was earning more than Rs.22,000/- per month. Since the dependants had lost the earning member of the family, they claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.

2.3. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed its counter denying the manner of the accident happened and the negligence attributed by the driver. According to the appellant, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and was travelling in a standing position near the front door without holding the support provided inside the bus. When the driver was compelled to apply sudden brakes, due to sudden crossing of a cyclist the deceased lost his balance and fell down. It was therefore contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and that the Transport Corporation was not liable to the extent claimed.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and were marked Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, the driver and conductor of the bus were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to both, the deceased and the driver of the Transport Corporation bus in the ratio of 35% and 65%, respectively. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the salary certificate and the other materials, determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.22,000/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.27,50,300/- under the following heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. After deducting 35% towards the contributory negligence attributed to the deceased, the Tribunal directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay the remaining 65% of the compensation: Sl. No. Heads Amount in Rs.

Loss of Dependency 23,95,800/-

Transportation 10,000/-

Loss of Estate 10,000/-

Medical Expenses 1,84,500/-

Loss of consortium for the 1st petitioner 35,000/-

Parental consortium (35000 X 2) 70,000/-

Filial consortium 35,000/-

Funeral expenses 10,000/- Total 27,50,300/- 35% of the contributory negligence of the deceased 27,50,300 (-) 9,62,605/- Rs.17,87,695/-

3.2. Challenging the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. The claimants have also filed cross objection and challenged the finding regarding 35% contributory negligence and seek enhancement of compensation.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was standing near the front door of the bus without holding the handrail or any other support. It was further submitted that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and that, when a cyclist suddenly crossed the road, the driver had to apply the brakes to avoid the accident. Due to the sudden braking, the deceased lost his balance and fell from the bus. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have attributed a greater degree of negligence to the deceased and ought not to have fixed 65% negligence on

the Transport Corporation bus driver.

4.2. With regard to the quantum, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had properly considered the salary certificate and other materials and there was no substantial dispute regarding the income adopted by the Tribunal.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a Transport Corporation bus and that the driver and conductor were under a duty to ensure the safety of the passengers. It was contended that, if the front door of the bus had been properly secured, the deceased could not have fallen outside the bus. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no justification for attributing 35% contributory negligence to the deceased.

5.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was employed in Kothari Sugars and Chemical Ltd., and that Ex.P9 and Ex.X1 establish his salary. Ex.X1 specifically reflects a monthly salary of Rs.22,009/-. It was therefore contended that the compensation requires enhancement by taking the actual salary and by adding the appropriate future prospects.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the entire

materials available on record.

7. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing negligence in the ratio of 65% on the appellant-Transport Corporation and 35% on the deceased?

(ii) Whether the compensation of Rs.27,50,300/- awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement?

8. Discussion on negligence:

8.1. So far as negligence is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the Transport Corporation bus and was standing near the front door. It is also the specific case of the appellant that a cyclist suddenly crossed the road, compelling the driver to apply the brakes.

8.2. At the same time, the deceased, being a passenger, was required to take reasonable care for his own safety while travelling in a standing position. The evidence also indicates that he was standing near the front door without holding the available support. This circumstance cannot be completely ignored while determining the manner in which the accident occurred.

8.3. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, including the evidence of the independent witnesses and the evidence of the driver and conductor, has attributed 35% contributory negligence to the deceased and 65% negligence to the Transport Corporation bus driver.

8.4. This Court finds that the Tribunal has taken into account the respective circumstances relied upon by both sides. The mere fact that the deceased was standing near the front door does not absolve the Transport Corporation driver of his duty to drive the vehicle with reasonable care and safety of the passengers. At the same time, the conduct of the deceased in travelling near the front door without holding the available support is also a relevant circumstance.

8.5. Therefore, the apportionment of negligence made by the Tribunal at 65% on the Transport Corporation bus and 35% on the deceased cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by the evidence. This Court finds no sufficient ground either to enhance or to reduce the percentage of negligence fixed by the Tribunal. The said finding is accordingly confirmed.

9. Discussion on quantum:

9.1. As regards the quantum, the deceased aged about 53 was employed as fitter in Kothari Sugars and Chemical Ltd., Kattur. In support of his employment and income, Ex.P9 and Ex.X1 have been relied upon. Ex.X1 reflects the monthly salary

of the deceased at Rs.22,009/-. The Tribunal, however, had taken the monthly income at Rs.22,000/-.

9.2. In the absence of any effective challenge to the genuineness of the salary records, the actual salary reflected in Ex.X1 deserves to be taken into consideration for determining the loss of dependency. Accordingly, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.22,009/-.

9.3. The Tribunal had not granted the appropriate addition towards future prospects. Having regard to the nature of the employment and the circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to add 15% towards future prospects.

9.4. Accordingly, the monthly income for the purpose of computation, after adding 15% towards future prospects, works out to Rs.25,310/-.

9.5. The compensation under the head of loss of dependency shall accordingly be recalculated on the basis of the monthly income of Rs.25,310/-, after applying the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased.

9.6. The other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered, except under heads of various consortium. Wife namely, 1st claimant entitled to Rs.40,000/- under spouse consortium and other claimants are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the love and affection.

10. Conclusion:

10.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is re-determined as follows:- Sl.No Heads Award of the Tribunal in (Rs) Re-quantified amount by this Court in (Rs) Status

Loss of Dependency 23,95,800/- 25,05,690/- Enhanced

Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Loss of Estate 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Medical Expenses 1,84,500/- 1,84,500/- Confirmed

Loss of consortium for the 1st petitioner 35,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced

Loss of Love and affection 70,000/- 1,20,000/- Enhanced

Funeral expenses 10,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced Total 27,50,300/- Deduction of 35% contributory negligence 9,62,605/- Rs.17,87,695 28,95,190/- Deduction of 35% contributory negligence 10,13,316/- Rs. Enhanced

/- 18,81,874/-

11. Result:

11.1. In view of the above, this appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2023 filed by the appellant Transport Corporation is dismissed and the cross-objection in Cros.Obj.(MD).No.36 of 2023 filed by the claimants is also partly allowed and the compensation in M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Trichy, Dated 01.11.2022, is enhanced from Rs.17,87,695/- to Rs.18,81,874/- after deducting 35% of contributory negligence.

11.2. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.18,81,874/- with 7.5% interest as passed by the learned Tribunal Judge after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

11.3. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, subject to the usual procedure. The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02-11-2026

NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn

To

1. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / The Learned Special District Court, Trichy.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J, sbn C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2023 02.11.2026