Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited vs Rajendra Kumar Kathotiya
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
and C.M.P.No.29139 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011538612026}
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Rajendra Kumar Kathotiya
2. Pramod Kumari Kathotiya
3. Anjali Paresh Karia
..Respondent(s)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 03.07.2025 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1793 of 2019, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Anton Dhanasekaran
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful Transport Corporation has filed this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the negligence fixed on them and the
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV
Court of Small Causes, Chennai, vide award dated 03.07.2025 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1793 of 2019.
2. The first and second claimants are the parents of the deceased Ambuj
Kathotiya and the third claimant is the wife of the deceased Ambuj Kathotiya.
According to the claimants/respondents herein, on 17.11.2018 at about
08.45 a.m., the deceased Ambuj Kathotiya was riding his motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.TN 05 BS 5014, at that time, a MTC Bus bearing
Reg.No.TN 01 N 8229 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind the deceased’s
motorcycle, due to which, the deceased died on the spot.
3. The appellant/Transport Corporation has filed a counter statement
denying the manner of accident and stated that the deceased attempted to
overtake the bus and hit the right side middle body of the bus and lost his
balance and caught on the rear wheel of the bus and sustained fatal injuries.
4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the second claimant
herself was examined as P.W.1 and eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was
examined and no document was marked.
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
5. On appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
bus. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed a sum
of Rs.25,000/- per month and added 40% towards future prospects as per the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others in
S.L.P(Civil).No.25590 of 2014 and 1/3rd was deducted towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, since there are three dependents and the
multiplier “17” was adopted by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 4 MLJ (SC) 997 and
accordingly, a sum of Rs.47,60,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of
dependency and also, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal
under various heads:-
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.47,60,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Transport charges Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.49,15,000/-
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
6. Aggrieved over the fixation of negligence and the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/Transport Corporation has
preferred this appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal has erred in fixing the entire negligence on the part of the
appellant/Transport Corporation only based on Ex.P4/FIR Copy and
Ex.P5/Rough Sketch prepared by the Investigator and the evidence of
P.W.2/eye-witness is not supported to the case of the claimants/respondents
herein. In the absence of proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought
not to have fixed a sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of the deceased.
8. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation and perused the materials
available on record.
9. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the
appellant Transport Corporation’s bus, the claimants have relied upon the
evidence of P.W.2, who is stated to be an eye-witness and who had
categorically deposed about the manner of accident. It is relevant to note that
there is no contra evidence adduced by the appellant Transport Corporation to
disprove the negligence act of the driver of the bus and neither the driver of the
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
bus nor any other independent witness has been examined to establish the fact
that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the deceased. In
the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, in Ex.P8/Salary slip of the deceased for the month of November 2018,
the monthly income was mentioned as Rs.65,000/-, whereas, in Ex.P9/a copy of
the bank statement of the deceased, the salary for the month of October 2018
was credited as Rs.48,947/- and since there was a difference between the salary
credited for the month of October 2018 and for the month of November 2018,
the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased and the other relevant factors,
fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- which appears to be
just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. By applying
the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others in
SLP(Civil).No.25590 of 2014, 40% was added towards future prospects and
since there were three dependents, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased and the multiplier “17” was adopted as per the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla
Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in
(2009) 4 MLJ (SC) 997 and accordingly, a sum of Rs.47,60,000/- was awarded
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
under the head of loss of dependency which appears to be just and proper. The
compensation awarded under the other heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss
of estate, funeral expenses and transport charges, also appears to be just and
proper and does not require any interference by this Court.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
award dated 03.07.2025 made in M.C.O.P.No.1793 of 2019 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is hereby
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ssb
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ssb
CMA No. 3575 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:24 pm )