The General Manager vs A.Kandasamy(died)
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
CNR:{HCMD011030642022}
AND
CMP(MD) No. 11333 of 2022
The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Periyamelagu Parai, Trichy - 1.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. A.Kandasamy(died)
S/o. Arumugasamy, No. 3/42, North Street,
Koothaipar, Thiruverambur, Trichy - 13.
2. K. Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. A. Kandasamy, No.3/42, North Street,
Koothaipar, Thiruverambur, Trichy - 13.
3. Thangarathinam,
W/o. Jayakumar, No. 48, Suruli Kovil Street,
Thiruverumbur, Trichy - 620013.
4. Latha Kumari,
W/o. Shanmugam, No. 219-1, Viswa Bharathi
Mill Quarters Vadamadurai, Vedasandur Taluk,
Dindigul District - 624 802.
5. Subathra,
W/o. Subramanian, No. 1/123, Kudi Street,
Kiliyur, Trichy District - 613 102.
6. Nalini,
D/o. A. Kandasamy No. 34, 2nd North Street,
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
Koothaipar Post, Thiruverambur Taluk, Trichy
District - 620013.
Respondents 3 to 6 are brought on record as LRs
of the deceased 1st Respondent vide court order
dated 03.09.2026 made in CMP(MD) No.9754 of
2026 in CMA(MD)No.1112 of 2022 by GRSJ
and MDSJ.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act to set aside the judgement and dated 20.06.2022 passed in
M.C.O.P. No. 1688 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Special District Judge), Trichirappalli.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar
For Respondent(s): M/s.M.Bavatharani For R2
Mr.S.Babu For R4 to R6
R1-Died
Re- No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajnish Pathiyil J.)
Challenging the award dated 20.06.2022 passed in M.C.O.P. No.
1688 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special District Judge), Tiruchirappalli, the present appeal in C.M.A.
No.1112 of 2022 has been filed. The appellant Transport Corporation is
the sole respondent in the M.C.O.P.
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
2. The claim petition would reveal that the deceased Velmurugan
was riding a two-wheeler bearing registration number TN 45 TV 8902 on
01.10.2015 at about 1.15 PM in the Trichy-Tanjore road from East to
west on the extreme left side of the road. At that time, a passenger bus
owned by the appellant Transport Corporation bearing registration
number TN 68 N 0690 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, came behind the deceased, and dashed against the two-wheeler
which was being driven ridden by the deceased Velmurugan. This
resulted in him being thrown down from the said two-wheeler, sustaining
multiple injuries all over the body, and he died on the spot. The body was
taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy for post-mortem.
On the basis of a complaint, a case in Cr.No.672 of 2015 was registered
in the Thiruverumbur police station under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC.
3. It is the contention of the claimant that the accident had occurred
only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid
offending vehicle, namely TN 68 N 0690. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both sides, the evidence
tendered on the side of the claimant (namely P.W.1, P.W.3), exhibits P1
to P23, the evidence of R.W.1, documents R1 to R3, and exhibits A1 and
A2 marked as witness documents, awarded a sum of Rs. 39,52,600. The
details are as under:-
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
21(A) Loss of Dependency Rs.38,55,600
(C) Transport Expenses Rs.7,000
(F) Filial Consortium at 35,000 x 2 Rs.70,000
Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000
Loss of Property Rs.10,000
Total Rs.39,52,600
4. Though several grounds have been raised in the appeal, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation would
focus the contentions on two aspects: namely, that the deceased was
negligent and that the accident happened only because of the negligence
of the deceased. The accident occurred when the corporation bus reached
Nochivayal-Puthur branch road. When the bus was about to cross the
branch road, the deceased came from the branch road on the south and
turned east in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed instead of
stopping at the road junction, and thus he was responsible for the
accident.
5. The other ground raised is that the Tribunal has taken the
income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month while there was no
substantial proof of the deceased having earned Rs.30,000/-, and thus the
findings of the Tribunal were remiss on the aforesaid grounds.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal misdirected itself in coming to a conclusion that the driver of the
offending vehicle, that is the appellant corporation bus, was at fault. As
can be seen from the discussions in the award of the trial Court, three
issues were framed. The first issue pertained to who among the two, the
deceased or the driver of the offending vehicle, was responsible for the
rash and negligent driving. On the first issue, the Tribunal analyzed the
evidence tendered by P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the accident, and
also examined the First Information Report (Exhibit P6) and the charge
sheet filed by the investigating officer which was against the driver of the
transport corporation bus. Considering the evidence of the eyewitness,
namely P.W.2, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident
occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the
corporation bus.
7. The discussion in sum and substance is as follows:
“ ... விபத்துகுறித்துஎதிர்மனுதாரர்வாகனஓட்டுனர்மீது
முதல்தகவல்அறிக்கை பதிவுசெய்யப்பட்டுள்ளநிலையில்
வழக்கில் புலன் விசாரணை முடிக்கப்பட்டு எதிர்மனுதாரர்
பேருந்து ஓட்டுனர் மீது தான் குற்றப்பத்திரிக்கை தாக்கல்
செய்யப்பட்டு குற்ற வழக்கு நீதித்துறை நடுவர் எண் .6
நீதிமன்றத்தில் சி . சி . vz;.112 / 2016 என கோ ப்பிற்கு
. . . .3
எடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதுஇந்தவிபரம்எ ம சா ஆ மூலம்தெரிய
வருகிறது . மேலும் விபத்து குறித்து ம . சா .1 சாட்சியம்
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
அளித்துள்ளநிலையில்சம்பவசமயத்தில்சம்பவஇடத்தில்
. .2
இருத்து சம்பவத்தை நேரில் பார்த்த ம சா தன்னுடைய
சாட்சியத்தில் விபத்து இறந்துபோ ன வே ல்முருகனின்
>
கவனக்குறைவால் ஏற்படவில்லை எனவும் விபத்து
f
எதிர்மனுதாரர் பேருந்து ஓட்டுனரின் வனக்குறைவினால்
மட்டுமே ஏற்பட்டது என குறிப்பிட்டு சாட்சியம்
..
அளித்துள்ளார்கள்…
. ghHf;Fk;NghJ
… அந்த வகையில் விபத்து இறந்துபோ ன
வே ல்முருகனின்கவனக்குறைவால்ஏற்படவில்லை எனவும் >
விபத்து எதிர்மனுதாரர் பேருந்து ஓட்டுனரின்
கவனக்குறைவால் ஏற்பட்டது என்பது குறித்தும் மனுதாரர்
தரப்பில்தகுந்தசாட்சிகள்மற்றும்சாண்றாவணங்கள்மூலம்
நிரூபிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது . மேலும் விபத்து சமயத்தில்
எதிர்மனுதாரர் பேருந்து ஓட்டுனருக்கு உரிய ஓட்டுனர்
உரிமமும் இருந்துள்ளது . இந்த விவரம் எ . ம . சா . ஆ .2 ஐ
பரிசீலனை செய்துபார்க்கும்போ துதெரியவருகிறது . மேலும்
இறந்துபோ ன வே ல்முருகனுக்கு விபத்து சமயத்தில் உரிய
ஓட்டுனர்உரிமம்இருந்துள்ளது . இந்தவிவரம்எ . ம . சா . ஆ -1 ஐ
பரிசீலனை செய்துபார்க்கும்போ துதெரியவருகிறது… . ”
8. In light of the categorical finding of the Tribunal on the
aforesaid aspect, namely the issue of negligence, we find nothing remiss
in the order of the Tribunal which requires interference by this court. The
findings appear to be cogent, reasonable, and on the basis of evidence
tendered by both sides. No doubt R.W.1 was examined, but his evidence
does not in any manner dilute the evidence of P.W.2, who is the
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
eyewitness and who has seen the accident on the fateful day. Hence, we
find that there is no ground made out for interference by this Court on the
findings with regard to negligence.
9. That leaves us with the only other ground which has been
substantially urged, that is the Tribunal having taken Rs.30,000/- as the
notional income of the deceased. The deceased had completed his
Bachelor's degree in Engineering (Mechanical) and had procured a first
division in the said engineering degree. Certificates marked as exhibits
P13 and P14 would reveal that he was a graduate engineer. The deceased
was working as a site engineer in Yongnam Engineering Construction
Private Limited, Singapore (Exhibit P9). The appointment letter would
reveal that he was working as a site engineer with effect from 25.04.2013
and the salary mentioned is Singapore Dollar S$ 2,100 per month. That
apart, the letter of employment also reveals that the deceased would be
paid an overtime allowance of S$ 10 per hour and he also has benefits of
reimbursement of medical claims, insurance coverage, medical leave, etc.
That apart, Exhibit P10 is the salary slip which would also reveal that he
was earning S$ 3,243. Thus, the claimants would substantiate from
Exhibits P9 and P10 that the income of the deceased was substantially
high, that is S$ 2,100 under Ex.P9 and S$ 3,243 Dollars under Exhibit
P10.
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Exhibit
P1 would reveal that the death happened on 01.10.2015, and the
certificates (exhibits P9 and P10) are of the dates 24.04.2013 and July
2013, and are not of the period proximate to the demise of the deceased.
Therefore, the deceased had left the employment in which he was
employed at Singapore and had returned to India. Even the passport
copies submitted do not reveal that he was frequently traveling to
Singapore, and thus the Tribunal had erroneously taken Rs.30,000/- as the
income of the deceased.
11. It is to be noted that in the relevant year, that is 2015,
1 S$ = INR 46.66 . Taking that into account, the salary of the deceased
was approximately Rs.1,20,000/- per month, while the Tribunal has taken
only Rs.30,000/- as the income of the deceased. The deceased was an
engineering graduate with a first-class degree, and in light of no other
evidence brought forth by the appellant to disprove that the deceased was
not employed, we are inclined to accept the contentions put forth by the
respondents and the findings rendered by the Tribunal. The reason being
that exhibits P9 and P10 cannot be discarded simply on the assertion that
they date back about two years before the demise of the deceased.
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
Considering the fact that the deceased was an engineering graduate, the
salary of Rs.30,000/- fixed per month does not appear to be excessive as
by then he had more than 5 years of experience as an engineer.
12. The future prospects have been fixed at 40% following the
decision in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others ,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which in our opinion is correct for the
reason that the future prospects for a person aged about 29 years can be
safely taken at 40%. Accordingly, Rs.12,000/- has been added to the
notional income of the deceased, arriving at Rs.42,000/-. The Tribunal
has also applied the decision in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 deducted
one-half as personal expenses of the deceased, and therefore come to a
conclusion that the contribution of the deceased to the family would be
Rs.21,000/- per month. Applying the same annually, it comes to Rs.
2,52,000/- per year. The multiplier adopted in the case is 17 as the
deceased was 29 years of age at the time of demise, which follows the
decision in Sarla Verma (Supra) and cannot be faulted. The Tribunal has
rightly come to a conclusion that the loss of dependency has to be
computed at Rs. 38,55,600.
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
13. The other conventional damages awarded appear to be fairly
reasonable, though there is every reason for further enhancement, as filial
consortium has been granted at Rs.35,000/- only and funeral expenses at
only Rs.10,000, which is also fairly on the lower side.
14. In light of our findings that exhibit P9 and exhibit P10 cannot
be discarded, that the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 30,000 cannot
be found to be excessive, and personal deductions have been done at 1/2
of the notional income of the deceased, we find no infirmity in the order
of the Tribunal. We find the compensation awarded is just and reasonable
and in line with the mandate of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
15.In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. The
appellant is directed to deposit the award amount together with accrued
interest (if not already deposited) within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made,
the claimants would be entitled to file necessary application for payment
out of the amounts in the same manner as has been set out in the award,
that is, the apportionment shall be done in the manner set out in the award
of the Tribunal. With the aforesaid directions, the Civil Miscellaneous
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.)
14-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
am
To
The Special District Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichirappalli.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
AND
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
AM
CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2022
AND
CMP(MD) No. 11333 of 2022
14-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 12:07:44 pm )