CMA(MD)/650/2024 of The General Manager Vs K.Umamaheswari on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is the appellant in C.M.A. (MD).No.650 of 2024, challenging the award dated 28.04.2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.78 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased Krishnan. According to the claimants, on 16.11.2021 at about 3.15 p.m., the deceased namely Krishnan, was standing on the Moonranthal Road, near Gandhi Statue. At that time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-4214, belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner driving by its driver and knocked down the deceased. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a carpenter and was earning more than Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.

2.2. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition disputing the manner of the accident and the negligence attributed to the bus driver. According to the Transport Corporation, the accident occurred at a junction and the bus was in the process of taking a right turn. At that time, the deceased suddenly crossed the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing. Though the driver applied the brake, the accident could not be avoided. Therefore, according to the appellant, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed as excessive.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked, on the side of the claimants. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the Transport Corporation.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the evidence, particularly the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal fixed negligence upon the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. In the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and applying future prospects, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,79,600/- under the following heads:- Sl.No Heads Amount in Rs.

Loss of dependency 8,09,600/-

Loss of Love and Affection 1,00,000/-

Loss of Consortium for 1st petitioner 50,000/-

Funeral Expenses 20,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.9,79,600/-

3.2. Challenging the said award, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal. The claimants have also filed Cross Objection(MD) No.56 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the material circumstances about the locale of the accident. According to the learned counsel, the accident occurred at an intersection where the bus was taking a right turn and, at that point of time, the deceased suddenly crossed the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing. The driver could not have anticipated such sudden crossing and, despite applying the brake, could not avoid the accident. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that negligence ought to have been attributed to the deceased.

4.2. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no documentary evidence to establish the alleged income of the deceased and that the Tribunal had arbitrarily fixed the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. It was also submitted that the Tribunal had adopted an excessive percentage towards future prospects and, therefore, the compensation requires reduction.

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

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the evidence of P.W.2, an independent witness, was rightly accepted by the Tribunal and clearly established the rash and negligent driving of the bus. According to the learned counsel, the fact that the accident occurred at a junction cannot absolve the driver of his duty to exercise due care. It was therefore submitted that the finding on negligence does not call for interference.

5.2. With regard to quantum, the learned counsel submitted that the deceased was working as a carpenter and, even though the claimants had stated that he was earning more than Rs.18,000/- per month, the Tribunal had fixed his income only at Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income ought to be enhanced to at least Rs.10,000/-.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in fastening the entire negligence upon the driver of the Transport Corporation bus?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

(iii) Whether the Transport Corporation is entitled to reduction of the compensation?

8. Discussion and Findings:

8.1. This Court carefully considered the evidence of P.W.2 as well as the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending bus to make the further discussion. It is relevant to extract the following portion of the evidence of the PW 2:- “tof;F rk;ge;jkhf NghyPrhu; vd;id tprhupj;J thf;F %yk; vJTk; thq;fp nfhs;stpy;iy vd;why; rup. fhe;jp rpiy mUNf cs;s rhiyahdJ 2 gpupTfshf gpupf;fg;gl;l rhiy vd;why; rup. ehd; tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; rhiyapd; fpof;fpypUe;J Nkw;F Nehf;fp ele;J te;J nfhz;bUe;Njd;. tpgj;jpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l NgUe;J NjdpapypUe;J jpUg;G+u; nrd;wJ. nghJthf %d;whe;jy; gFjp vd;gJ kf;fs; elkhl;lk; mjpfk; cs;s gFjp vd;why; rup. me;j rhiyapy; ,U rf;fu thfdNk nkJthf nry;y KbAk; vd;why; rup. ,U rf;fu thfdNk tpgj;J ele;j rhiyapy; nkJthf nry;Yk;NghJ> NgUe;J me;j rhiyapy; Ntfkhf Xl;Ltjw;F rhj;jpakpy;iy vd;why; rup. Rhiyapd; tisapy; tpgj;J ele;jJ. fl;blq;fs; epiwa cs;sjhy; NgUe;J rhiyapd; tistpy; Ntfkhf nry;y KbahJ.”

8.2. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred at a junction. R.W.1 has specifically deposed that the bus was taking a right turn at the junction and that the deceased suddenly crossed the road at that point of time. The said version of R.W.1 cannot be completely discarded, particularly when the place of occurrence was admittedly an intersection.

8.3. At the same time, the fact that there was no zebra crossing cannot, by itself, absolve the driver of the bus from exercising reasonable care. A driver of a public transport vehicle is expected to be cautions, particularly while negotiating an intersection and taking a turn.

8.4. Nevertheless, the evidence on record indicates that the deceased suddenly attempted to cross the road at a intersection and at a place where there was no designated pedestrian crossing. The sudden cross of the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the entire negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the bus.

8.5. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to attribute 20% contributory negligence to the deceased. Consequently, the appellant-Transport Corporation shall be liable to satisfy 80% of the compensation. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is modified to the aforesaid extent.

8.6. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident. The claimants contended that he was working as a carpenter and earning more than Rs.18,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence has been produced to establish the actual income. Nevertheless, considering the avocation of the deceased as a carpenter and the period of the accident, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- appears to be on the lower side. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 55 years and there is no material to establish a permanent salaried employment, 10% towards future prospects would be appropriate. Thus, the monthly income, after adding future prospects, is

Rs.9,000/- + 10% = Rs.9,900/-

8.7. The annual income would therefore be Rs.9,900 × 12 = Rs.1,18,800/-. Since the deceased is survived by the claimants, after applying the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses, taking two-thirds of the income as the contribution to the family, the annual contribution would be Rs.1,18,800 × 2/3 = Rs.79,200/-.

8.8. Considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, the appropriate multiplier is 11. Therefore, the loss of dependency is, Rs.79,200 × 11 = Rs.8,71,200/-.

8.9. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant is little excessive and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 2nd claimant is excessive. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reduce the amount awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and loss of consortium to the 2nd claimant from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and towards funeral expenses Rs.20,000/- is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Further, under the head of loss of estate Rs.15,000/- is awarded and under the head of transportation expenses Rs.10,000/- is awarded.

9. Conclusion:

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

Loss of dependency 8,09,600/- 8,71,200/- Enhanced

Loss of Consortium for 1st petitioner 50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced

Loss of Consortium for son 1,00,000/- 40,000/- Reduced

Funeral Expenses 20,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced

Loss of estate ------- 15,000/- Awarded

Transportation expenses ------- 10,000/- Awarded Total Compensation Awarded Rs.9,79,600/- Rs.10,01,200/- Deduction of 20% contributory negligence of the deceased Rs.2,00,240/- Total Entitled Amount Rs.9,79,600/- Rs.8,00,960/- Reduced

10. Result:

10.1. Thus, the total compensation payable is fixed at Rs.10,01,200/-. Since 20% contributory negligence has been attributed to the deceased, the liability of the appellant-Transport Corporation is restricted to 80% of the said amount. Accordingly, 80% of Rs.10,01,200/- works out to Rs.8,00,960/-.

10.2. In the result, C.M.A.(MD).No.650 of 2024 is partly allowed and Cross Objection (MD).No.56 of 2024 is dismissal with modification of determination of compensation. The award dated 28.04.2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.78 of 2021 is hereby modified and the total compensation is reduced from Rs.9,79,600/- to Rs.8,00,960/-, by deducting 20% contributory negligence. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, excluding the period of delay, if any, attributable to the claimants.

10.3. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10.4. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in the proportion apportioned by the Tribunal, subject to payment of requisite court fee, if any.

10.5. If any amount has been deposited in excess of the liability determined herein, the appellant-Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No AKM To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additioanl District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. AKM C.M.A.(MD).No.650 of 2024 & CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.56 of 2024 & CMP(MD).No. 7837 of 2024

Dated: 02.11.2026