The General Manager vs K.Umamaheswari
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 22.09.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
CMP(MD) NO. 7837 of 2024
{CNR: HCMD010207202024}
Case QR
in
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
{CNR: HCMD010207182024}
Case QR
and
CROS.OBJ(MD) NO. 56 of 2024
{CNR: HCMD011038272024}
Case QR
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
The General Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corportion,
Kumbakonam ltd., Trichy Division,
Trichy District. ...Appellant(s)
Vs
1. K.Umamaheswari
2. C.K.Balaji ...Respondent(s)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act to allow this appeal by setting aside the award dated 28.04.2023 made
in M.C.O.P No.78 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
Additioanl District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam and pass such other
orders, as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
CROS.OBJ.(MD).NO.56 of 2024
1. K.Umamaheswari
2. C.K.Balaji ...Petitioners /
Cross Objectors
Vs
The General Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corportion,
Kumbakonam ltd., Trichy Division,
Trichy District. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Cross objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Civil Procedure
Code. to call for the records to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2023
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions
Judge), Theni at Periyakulam and enhance the compensation by allowing this
Cross Objection in CMA(MD) No.650 of 2024 on the file of this Honourable
Court.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.Ramaiah
in CMA(MD)No.650 of 2024
: Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
in CROS.OBJ(MD)No.56 of 2024
For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar for R1 & R2
in CMA(MD)No.650 of 2024
: Mr.K.Ramaiah
in CROS.OBJ(MD)No.56 of 2024
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
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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.
1 Loss of dependency 8,09,600/-
2 Loss of Love and Affection 1,00,000/-
st
3 50,000/-
Loss of Consortium for 1 petitioner
4 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.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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.
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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:
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
(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
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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
st
sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1 claimant is little excessive
nd
and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 2 claimant
is excessive. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reduce the amount awarded
st
towards loss of consortium to the 1 claimant from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and
nd
loss of consortium to the 2 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.
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
9.Conclusion:
9.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the claimants is re-determined as follows:-
Amount
awarded by
the Tribunal
Re-quantified
Sl.
Heads
No
amount by
Status
this Court
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 8,09,600/- 8,71,200/- Enhanced
2 Loss of Consortium
st
for 1 petitioner
50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced
3 Loss of Consortium
for son
1,00,000/- 40,000/- Reduced
4 Funeral Expenses 20,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
5 Loss of estate ------- 15,000/- Awarded
6 Transportation
expenses
------- 10,000/- Awarded
Total Compensation
Rs.9,79,600/- Rs.10,01,200/-
Awarded
Deduction of 20%
contributory negligence
Rs.2,00,240/-
of the deceased
Total Entitled Amount Rs.9,79,600/- Rs.8,00,960/- Reduced
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
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
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 650 of 2024
Dated: 02.11.2026
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:40:34 am )