THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs ALAGAMANI
- Court
- Madras High Court
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 21.09.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD) NO. 864 of 2022
{CNR: HCMD010486212022}
Case QR
CMP(MD) Nos. 8227 of 2022 & 15157 of 2023
The Managing Director
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd.
Pudukkottai. ...Appellant(s)
Vs
1.Alagumani
2.Elamparuthi
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act to set aside the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.644 of 2018
dated 06-01-2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional
District and Special Court, Pudukkottai.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.Maheswaran for R1 & R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
JUDGEMENT
The respondent/Transport Corporation in M.C.O.P. No.644 of 2018 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Special Court,
Pudukkottai has filed the present C.M.A.(MD). No. 864 of 2022, challenging the
award dated 06.01.2022.
2.Facts of the case:
2.1.The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.644 of 2018 are the dependants of the
deceased Ramesh. According to the claim petition, on 29.07.2018, at about
12.35 p.m., the deceased was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-67-
BX-1009, with his friend travelling as a pillion rider. At that time, the
appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-55-N-0724, driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the two-
wheeler. In the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the
spot. The dependants thereafter filed the claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.2 crores.
2.2.It was stated that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was employed
in a tractor company, earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. The
appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition, disputing the manner of
the accident as well as the quantum of compensation. It was specifically contended
that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport
Corporation bus.
2.3.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondent/Transport
Corporation, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.
3.Findings of the Tribunal:
3.1.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the Transport Corporation bus and awarded a sum of Rs.13,55,200/- as
compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition.
Sl.No Heads Amount in Rs.
1 Loss of Income 12,85,200/-
2 Loss of Amenities 15,000/-
3 Loss of Love and Affection 40,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.13,55,200/-
3.2.Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has preferred the
present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
4.Submission 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 fact that the deceased was riding
the two-wheeler without wearing a helmet and that the FIR itself had been registered
against the deceased. It was therefore contended that the deceased had also
contributed to the occurrence of the accident and that the entire negligence could not
have been fastened upon the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. The learned
counsel further submitted that the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, was not
properly appreciated by the Tribunal and sought re-appreciation of the evidence on
record.
5.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants:
5.1.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that
the Tribunal, upon considering the evidence of P.W.2, who had spoken about the
occurrence, had rightly fixed the negligence upon the driver of the Transport
Corporation bus. It was further submitted that the mere registration of an FIR against
the deceased cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of negligence on the
part of the deceased. Hence, the learned counsel sought dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
6.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
records.
7.The following point arises for consideration:
(i)Whether the deceased Ramesh had also contributed to the occurrence of the
accident and, if so, to what extent?
8.Discussion and Findings:
8.1.P.W.2 has spoken about the manner of the accident and attributed
negligence to the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. At the same time, it is not
in dispute that the FIR came to be registered against the deceased. R.W.1, the driver
of the Transport Corporation bus, has also been examined. He has specifically
deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
deceased.
8.2.The evidence of R.W.1, in this regard, cannot be completely brushed aside,
particularly when it receives some corroboration from the fact that the FIR was
registered against the deceased. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that
the registration of an FIR, by itself, is not conclusive proof of negligence.
Nevertheless, it is a relevant circumstance which has to be considered along with the
other evidence available on record.
8.3.Another relevant circumstance is that the deceased was not wearing a
helmet at the time of the accident. The deceased sustained fatal head injuries in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
occurrence. Therefore, non-wearing of a helmet assumes significance while
examining the issue of contributory negligence. The Tribunal, however, has not
properly considered these circumstances in proper perspective.
8.4.Having regard to the evidence of P.W.2, the evidence of R.W.1, the
registration of the FIR against the deceased and, more particularly, the admitted
circumstance that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and sustained fatal head
injuries, this Court is of the view that some degree of contributory negligence has to
be attributed to the deceased.
8.5.At the same time, the materials available on record do not warrant shifting
the entire responsibility for the accident upon the deceased. On an overall
appreciation of the evidence, this Court considers it appropriate to fix 15%
contributory negligence on the deceased rider and 85% negligence on the driver of
the Transport Corporation bus.
8.6.Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is
modified. The appellant/Transport Corporation shall be liable to satisfy 85% of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while the remaining 15% shall be deducted
towards the contributory negligence of the deceased.
8.7.In arriving at the above conclusion, this Court has also kept in view the
decisions of the number of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dealing with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
consequence of non-wearing of a helmet in a case involving head injuries,
particularly where the FIR was registered against the deceased.
9.Conclusion:
9.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the claimants is re-determined as follows:-
Award in
Rs.Amount
awarded by
the Tribunal
Re-quantified
Sl.
Heads
No
amount by
Status
this Court
1 Loss of Income 12,85,200/- 12,85,200/- Confirmed
2 Loss of Amenities 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
3 Loss of Love and
Affection
40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed
4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.13,55,200/- Rs.13,55,200/- Confirmed
----------
----------- Rs.2,03,280/-
15% deducted towards the
contributory negligence
Total Entitlement of the
----------- Rs.11,51,920/- Reduced
claimant
10.Result:
10.1.Accordingly, the C.M.A.(MD). No.864 of 2022 is partly allowed .
10.2. The award in M.C.O.P. No. 644 of 2018 dated 06.01.2022 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Special Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
Pudukkottai is hereby modified and the compensation is reduced from
Rs.13,55,200/- to Rs.11,51,920/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition.
10.3.The appellant/Transport Corporation shall deposit the award amount,
together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting 15% towards the contributory
negligence of the deceased, if not already deposited.
10.4.On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective
shares from the deposited amount of Rs.11,51,920/- in accordance with the
apportionment made by the Tribunal.
10.5.If any amount in excess of the liability fixed upon the appellant/Transport
Corporation has already been deposited, the appellant/Transport Corporation is
permitted to withdraw the excess amount, in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.11.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
AKM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Special Court,
Pudukkottai
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
AKM
C.M.A.(MD).No.864 of 2022
Dated: 02.11.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:59:15 am )