B. Usha alias Usha Devi, vs The Managing Director,
- Court
- Madras High Court
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 03.09.2026
DELIVERED ON : 05.11.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.D.SUMATHI
CMA(MD) NO. 315 of 2022
{CNR: HCMD011079472014}
Case QR
1.B.Ushan @ Usha Devi
2.Minor B.Kusbhu Kumari
3.Minor B.Monica Kumari
4.Minor B.Dilip Kumar,
5.Minor B.Moona
6.G.Juwarmaal
7.J.Tijo Devi ... Appellants
- Vs. -
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Madurai Bye-Pass Road,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondent
st
[Appellants 2 to 5 rep., by natural guardian/mother 1 appellant]
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.2014
passed in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sureshkumar
for Mr.S.Sivathilakar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajamohan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[ Judgment of the Court was made by M.D.SUMATHI, J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/plaintiffs, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated
23.07.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 2010, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking before the Tribunal.
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
3. On 05.09.2010, the deceased Balakrishnan was riding his
Hero Honda Activa bearing Registration No.TN 69 7715, along with his
two brothers, on the left side of the Eral–Kurumbur Main Road,
proceeding from east to west. When they were nearing the Graveyard
Bridge at Karavilai, the driver of the respondent's bus bearing
Registration No. TN 63 N 0771 drove the said bus in the opposite
direction at a high speed, on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and
negligent manner and without proper control, and dashed against the
deceased's motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the deceased
Balakrishnan and one of his brothers died on the spot. The other brother
subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem examination of
the deceased was conducted at the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam.
st
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1
nd rd
claimant is the wife of the deceased. The 2 and 3 claimants are his
th th th
minor daughters, and the 4 and 5 claimants are his minor sons. The 6
th
claimant is the father of the deceased and the 7 claimant is his mother.
5. Not satisfied quantum of compensation awarded by the
3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
Tribunal as well as liability fixed against the deceased, the claimants have
come before this Court by filing the present appeal.
7. The respondent opposed the claim petition on the ground
that accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the
deceased.
8. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence available on
record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of both the bus driver and the rider of the two-
wheeler. Further, the Tribunal attributed 50% contributory negligence to
the deceased on the ground that three persons were travelling on the two-
wheeler. Accordingly, after deducting 50% of the compensation towards
contributory negligence, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay a
sum of Rs.16,56,500/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by
the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
Tribunal was not justified in deducting 50% compensation amount
4/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He further
submitted that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the
accident. He was carrying on export and import textile business under the
name and style of “Pooja Collections” and was earning more than
Rs.60,000/- per month. Hence, he contended that the amount of
Rs.2,05,000/- per annum fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the
deceased is very much on lower side.
10. He further submitted that the accident occurred solely due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's bus. The
respondent is the owner of the bus bearing Registration No. TN 63 N
0771. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the
respondent's bus by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurumbur Police
Station, in Crime No.179/2010 for the offence under Sections 279, 337
and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The said criminal case is pending
before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikuntam.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
based on the rough sketch-Ex.P4 and based on the evidence of the driver
5/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
of the bus, the Tribunal rightly fixed 50% contributory negligence on the
deceased. He further submits that the claimants have not produced any
documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased, and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income
at Rs.2,05,000/- per annum (Rs.17,084/- per month) based on Ex.P10 to
Ex.P12-income tax statements of the deceased and the same requires no
interference by this court.
12. As regards the finding of contributory negligence, it is not
in dispute that the deceased was riding the two-wheeler along with his
two brothers. Such triple riding is in violation of Section 128 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the mere fact that three persons were
travelling on the two-wheeler would not, by itself, be sufficient to
conclude that the deceased was responsible for 50% of the negligence.
The Court is required to examine whether the said violation had a causal
connection with the occurrence of the accident or the consequences
thereof.
6/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
13. In Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
mere presence of more than the permitted number of persons on a two-
wheeler would not automatically establish contributory negligence unless
a causal connection between such violation and the accident or its
consequences is established.
14. In the present case, the claimants contend that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, who
allegedly drove the bus at high speed and on the wrong side of the road.
The registration of a criminal case against the bus driver and the other
evidence available on record must be considered in determining the
respective contribution of the parties to the accident.
15. Having regard to the evidence on record, if the predominant
negligence is found attributable to the driver of the bus and the
circumstances establish a contributory role on the part of the deceased,
this Court is of the view that fixing equal negligence on both parties
would be excessive. Accordingly, the contributory negligence is modified
7/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
to 75% on the driver of the offending bus and 25% on the deceased rider.
The award of the Tribunal is modified to that extent.
16. On perusal of the materials available on record and upon
consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly
determined the monthly income of the deceased, applied the appropriate
multiplier, and made the deduction towards personal and living expenses.
This Court finds no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal under the
aforesaid heads warranting interference. Accordingly, the findings of the
Tribunal in this regard are hereby confirmed.
17. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
and upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side, this Court finds that the claimants are entitled to
a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards 'Transport Expenses'. The first appellant herein is
entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'.
8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
18. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No. 452
of 2010 is modified as follows:-
Amount granted
by this Court
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
granted by the
Tribunal
1. Loss of Income Rs.27,88,000/- Rs.27,88,000/-
2. Funeral
Expenses
Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/-
3. Transport
Expenses
Nil Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of love and
affection for the
children
(4x1,00,000/-)
Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.4,00,000/-
5. Loss of love and
affection for the
parents
(2x10,000/-)
Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
6. Loss of
Consortium to
the first
appellant
Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.33,13,000/- Rs.34,38,000/-
9/13
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. In the above said total amount, after deducting 25% for
contributing negligence, Rs.25,78,500/- alone is eligible for the
appellants/plaintiffs as compensation.
20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.16,56,500/- to Rs.25,78,500/- . The respondent/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, less the amount
already deposited, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period
of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
21. On such deposit, the appellants 1, 6 & 7 are permitted to
withdraw their respective shares of compensation, together with
proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment ordered
by the tribunal, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing appropriate
applications before the Tribunal.
10/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
22. The shares allotted to the minor claimants shall be
deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposits until they attain
st
majority, with provision for renewal from time to time. The 1
appellant/mother of the minor claimants is permitted to withdraw the
accrued interest periodically for the welfare and benefit of the minors.
23. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal stands partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated
23.07.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 2010, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, is
modified to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ G.R.S., J.] & [M.D.S., J.]
05.11.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
PJL
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thoothukudi.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
11/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
Madurai Bye-Pass Road,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
12/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
M.D.SUMATHI, J
PJL
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.315 of 2022
05.11.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 05:40:08 pm )