The Managing Director, TNSTC vs VIJAYALAKSHMI ALIAS KALAVATHY
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
and
CMP.No.29611 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010546452026}
The Managing Director,
TNSTC,
Dindigul Region,
Bye Pass Road,
Collectorate Post, Dindigul 624 004. ..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Vijayalakshmi Alias Kalavathy
2. Radha
3. Venkatesan
4. Girija
5. Rama
6. Babu ..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award dated 02.01.2025 made in MCOP
No.36 2019 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge/Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal Tiruppur at Dharapuram.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Anton Dhanasekaran
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful Transport Corporation has preferred the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the negligence fixed on the part of the
appellant herein.
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
2. Claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act,
seeking compensation for the dependent of the deceased one Srinivasan. The
th
first, second and 4 claimants are the sisters and third claimant is the brother of
the deceased.
3. According to the claimants, on 05.07.2019 at about 10.15 p.m. the
deceased was driving a TVS XL Super motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN
42 8483 from west to east, along the extreme left side of the Dharapuram to
Ottanchatram byepass Road, near Alangiyam Roundana, on the eastern side of
Pallivasal. At that time, the first respondent drove the TNSTC bus bearing
Registration No.TN 57 2202 in the same direction in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased was thrown
off the vehicle and sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was
taken to the Government Hospital, Dharapuram and thereafter admitted to
private hospitals for further treatment. Despite the treatment, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries on 08.07.2019.
4. It is the further claim of the claimants that the deceased was aged about
53 years and he was working as Samayal Contractor, Sri Srinivasa
Catering at Dharapuram and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
5. The driver/first respondent - TNSTC was called absent and set exparte
before the Tribunal.
6. The second respondent/Transport Corporation has filed the counter
statement contending that the deceased was riding the motorcycle without
wearing a helmet, suddenly moved towards the centre of the road without
giving any indication, thereby dashing against the front left side of the bus.
Despite the efforts of the bus driver to avert the accident, the deceased lost
control of the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently
succumbed to the same. It was further contended that the deceased rode the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus, resulting
in an unavoidable accident. According to the second respondent, the accident
occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, and the bus driver was in
no way responsible for the same.
7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, third claimant was
examined as P.W.1 and one eyewitness was examined as P.W2. Ex.P1 to P.26
were marked. On the side of the second respondent, the bus conductor was
examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
8. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
found that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
bus driver. It is pertinent to note that the bus driver was not examined as a
witness before the Tribunal. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- notional monthly income of the deceased,
added 10% towards future prospects, deducted one-fourth towards his personal
and living expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 11 to
determine the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The
Tribunal also awarded compensation under various heads as detailed below :-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
1 Loss of dependency
( Rs.10,000/- +10% -1/4 x12x11)
Rs.10,89,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/-
4 Medical expenses Rs. 38,361/-
Total Rs.11,63,361/-
rounded off to
Rs/11,63,000/-
9. Aggrieved over the same, the Appellant/Transport Corporation has
preferred the present appeal challenging the negligence fixed on their part.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the
deceased suddenly moved towards the centre of the main road. It was further
contended that the bus driver had provided sufficient space to the motorcyclist
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
to avoid the accident. However, the deceased suddenly turned his motorcycle
and dashed against the left side body of the bus, fell on the road and sustained
fatal injuries. Therefore, according to the appellant, the accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. The Tribunal also
failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, who categorically deposed that the
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. It was
further contended that the Ex.P1- FIR revealed that the criminal case was
registered against the deceased and that the final report was also filed against
him. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.2 was an interested
witness and therefore, his evidence ought not to have been relied upon.
11. This Court has considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
12. According to the claimants, on 05.07.2019 at about 10.15 p.m., the
deceased was riding his two-wheeler from east to west along the eastern side of
Pallivasal. At that time, the first respondent drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. In order to establish their
case, the claimants relied upon the evidence of PW2, who was an eyewitness to
the accident and categorically deposed regarding the manner in which the
accident occurred. During his cross examination, nothing was elicited to
discredit his testimony regarding the manner of the accident.
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
13. Per contra, according to the appellant, on 05.07.2019, the bus driver
was driving the bus from Coimbatore to Dindigul at a normal speed from west
to east. At that time, the deceased, who was riding a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN 42 8483 without wearing a helmet and without observing
the traffic rules, suddenly moved towards the middle of the road without any
indication and dashed against the front left side of the bus. Despite the efforts
of the bus driver to avert the accident, the deceased lost control of the
motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the
same. In order to establish the above contention, the bus conductor was
examined as R.W.1, who deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the deceased.
14. It is relevant to note that P.W.2, the eyewitness, categorically deposed
that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligence driving of the
bus driver and his evidence remained unshaken during cross examination.
Though the police filed a final report marked as Ex.P8, closing the criminal case
as a mistake of fact on the ground that the deceased was responsible for the
accident, there was no evidence to establish that the deceased was under the
influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The Accident Register and the
Post-mortem Certificate also did not support such a contention.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
15. Further, the rough sketch indicated that the deceased was riding on
the extreme left side of the road and that sufficient space was available for the
bus driver to aver the accident. On behalf of the second respondent, R.W1, the
st
conductor of the bus, was examined. However, the 1 respondent, who was the
driver of the bus and the person competent to speak about the manner of the
accident, was not examined to substantiate the defence. Hence, the evidence of
RW1 cannot be considered wholly reliable.
16. It is also relevant to note that the first respondent, being the driver of
the bus and the person directly concerned with the occurrence, did not appear
before the Tribunal and enter the witness box to explain the manner in which
the accident occurred or to substantiate the contention that the accident had
occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. Neither the bus driver
nor any independent witness, such as a passenger travelling in the bus at the
time of accident, was examined to establish the appellant’s defence. In such
circumstances, considering the cogent and reliable evidence of P.W.2, the eye
witness, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. This Court finds no reason to
interfere with the said finding.
17. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the
claimants that the deceased was a cooking contractor and was earning a sum of
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
Rs.15,000/- p.m. Considering the fact that the accident occurred on 05.07.2019
and that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of accident, as evidenced by
Ex.P3-Postmortem Certificate, the Tribunal fixing a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
month as notional monthly income of the deceased, appears to be reasonable
and proper. The Tribunal also added 10% towards future prospects, deducted
one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied
the multiplier of “11” thereby awarding a sum of Rs.10,89,000/- towards loss of
dependency. This Court finds the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the said head to be just and fair. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
appears to be just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed
18. In the result,
i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed,
confirming the award dated 02.01.2025 passed in
MCOP No.386 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ III Additional District Court, Dharapuram.
ii) The appellant- Transport Corporation is directed to
deposit the award amount before the Tribunal, along
with interest and costs, (less amount already
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
deposited if any), within a period of eight weeks from
today.
iii)On such deposit being made, the
respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their
share amount as apportioned by the Tribunal along
with the interest and costs, ( after adjusting the
amount, if any already withdrawn) by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal.
iv)The manner and mode of disbursement of
compensation shall be as per the order of the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.11.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking : Non Speaking Order
KKD
To
III Additional District Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Tiruppur at Dharapuram.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
KKD
CMA No. 3639 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:51:20 pm )