S.Amutha vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 24.09.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
{CNR: HCMD011166492018}
Case QR
1. S.Amutha
2. Senthamilselvan
3. S.Dinesh
4. S.Eswari
5. P.Sangli ...Appellant(s)
Vs
1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Represented by its Managing Director
Bye-Pass Road, Madurai.
2.Kumaresan
3.Sri Ram General Insurance Company
Represented by its Regional Manager
TP Claims, EPIP,
Riico Sitapuram, Jaipur,
Rajesthan.
4.Suriyaprakash ...Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act to enhance the award of compensation passed in
M.C.O.P.No.144 of 2010 dated 07.06.2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Theni to the appellants by allowing
this appeal.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.Sudalaiyandi For R1
: Mr.D.Sivaraman for R3
: R2 Died
: No appearance for R4
JUDGEMENT
The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.144 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Theni, have filed the present
C.M.A.(MD).No.514 of 2023, challenging the 30% contributory negligence fixed
on the deceased by award dated 07.06.2013 and to enhance the compensation.
2.Facts of the case:
2.1.The claimants are the legal dependants of the deceased S.M.Samy @
Mottayasamy. According to the claimants, on 01.03.2010 at about 3.15 p.m., the
deceased was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-60-B-9986 on
the Kottur–Seelayampatty Main Road. While he was attempting to overtake a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
lorry, a Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-58-N-1226 came
from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner driving by its driver and
dashed against the deceased's two-wheeler. In the accident, the deceased sustained
fatal injuries and died.
2.2.The claimants therefore filed M.C.O.P. No.144 of 2010, claiming
st
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest. The 1 respondent/Transport
Corporation contested the claim petition contending that the deceased, while
attempting to overtake the lorry, failed to notice the bus coming from the opposite
direction and got involved in the accident. It was further contended that, while
overtaking the lorry, the deceased first scraped against a lorry, fell down and
thereafter came under the wheels of the Transport Corporation bus. Hence,
according to the Transport Corporation, the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the deceased and the bus driver was not responsible.
2.3.The Insurance Company also disputed the negligence attributed to the
lorry driver and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence
of the deceased.
2.4.Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were
marked on the side of the claimants. The driver of the Transport Corporation bus
was examined as R.W.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
3.Findings of the Tribunal:
3.1.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
fixed 30% contributory negligence on the deceased and 70% negligence on the
driver of the Transport Corporation bus and awarded a sum of Rs.19,16,252/- as
compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
the claim petition.
Sl. Awarded Amount
Heads
No.
(in Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 18,71,252/-
2 Loss of Consortium 10,000/-
3 Loss of love and affection 30,000/-
4 Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.19,16,252/-
3.2.Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present
appeal.
4.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants:
4.1.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Transport
Corporation bus and that the Tribunal was not justified in fixing 30% contributory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
negligence on the deceased. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and
the other materials on record clearly establish the negligence of the bus driver.
4.2.With regard to quantum, the learned counsel submitted that the deceased
was a Constable and was aged only 40 years at the time of the accident. Therefore,
the Tribunal ought to have awarded 50% towards future prospects. It was further
submitted that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads were also
inadequate and therefore the compensation requires enhancement.
st
5.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1
respondent/Transport Corporation:
5.1.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation
submitted that the evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was attempting to
overtake the lorry when the bus was approaching from the opposite direction. The
deceased, without taking proper care, attempted to overtake and scraped against the
lorry, fell down and was thereafter run over by the Transport Corporation bus.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal rightly fixed 30%
contributory negligence on the deceased.
5.2.With regard to future prospects, the learned counsel submitted that the
Tribunal had correctly applied the percentage applicable to the age of the deceased
and that there was no justification for further enhancement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
6.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for
consideration:
(i)Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 30% contributory negligence
on the deceased and 70% negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation
bus?
(ii)Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires
enhancement?
8.Discussion on negligence:
8.1.This Court carefully considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the
evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, and Ex.P7-sketch.
A perusal of undisputed Ex.P7-sketch assumes significance. It discloses that the
deceased, while riding the two-wheeler, attempted to overtake the lorry and, in the
course of such overtaking, crossed over the middle portion of the road and entered
the lane of the Transport Corporation bus coming from the opposite direction.
Thereafter, the deceased scraped against the lorry and fell down and the bus ran
over him.
8.2.The version emerging from Ex.P7-sketch is also broadly consistent with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
the other materials available on record. The deceased, while attempting to overtake
the lorry, was required to exercise greater care and ensure that the opposite side of
the road was free before proceeding to overtake. He failed to do so and thereby
contributed to the occurrence.
8.3.At the same time, the negligence cannot be fastened entirely upon the
deceased. The Transport Corporation bus is a larger vehicle approaching from the
opposite direction. The driver, on noticing the two-wheeler entering his lane, was
required to exercise reasonable care and take appropriate steps to avoid the
collision, by reducing the speed, applying the brakes or moving further left of the
road. The record shows that sufficient space was available on the left side of the
road. It is relevant to extract the following paragraph no.16 of the Hon’ble Division
Bench of Gujarat in the case of Rehana Rahimbhai Kasambhai v. The Transport
Manager, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service reported in AIR 1976 Guj 37
(DB) is as follows:
“16. In a long series of decisions this court has been
right1y guided by the view that those who are moving with
heavy and mechanically operated vehicles in road traffic
bear a greater responsibility not on1v towards the
pedestarians and cyclists but also towards equally heavier
and speedier vehicles and should, therefore, drive their
vehicles in such a manner that they can stop them and take
them into control within a fraction of a moment to avoid a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
collision. The driver of such a vehicle should always be on
a proper look out and watch the road behaviour of all the
pedestrians and vehicles moving an the road.”
8.4.The learned Tribunal Judge, upon appreciation of the entire evidence,
has therefore apportioned the negligence at 30% on the deceased and 70% on the
driver of the Transport Corporation bus. This Court finds that the said
apportionment is based upon the evidence available on record and does not warrant
interference. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal fixing 30% contributory
negligence on the deceased and 70% negligence on the driver of the Transport
Corporation bus is hereby confirmed.
9.Discussion on Quantum:
9.1.The deceased was working as a Constable. His date of birth is stated to
be 20.04.1970 and the accident occurred on 01.03.2010. It is well settled,
completed age is fully completed years and not the current running years. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan
& Anr. reported in (1986) (4) SCC 59 and Eerati Laxman v. State of A.P., reported
in (2009) 3 SCC 337 reiterated that a person is legally deemed to attain a specific
age at the commencement or day preceding their birthday anniversary. Therefore,
in this case, age of deceased was taken as 39 years. Therefore, the deceased had
completed 39 years and was in his 40th year at the time of the accident. In terms of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
the applicable principle governing future prospects, a person below 40 years of age
is entitled to 50% addition towards future prospects.
9.2.The Tribunal has failed to grant the appropriate addition towards future
prospects. Therefore, the loss of dependency requires to be recalculated by taking
50% future prospects.
9.3.The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.21,615/-. By adding 50%
towards future prospects, the monthly income works out to:
Rs.21,615 + 50% = Rs.32,422.50/-
Rounded off, the monthly income is taken as Rs.32,423/-. After deducting 1/5th
towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family
works out to 4/5th. Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency is
calculated as follows:
Rs.32,423 × 4/5 × 12 × 15 = Rs.46,68,912/-
9.4.Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the tribunal has
awarded Rs.10,000/- towards consortium is hereby enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and
Loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 5, is hereby enhanced to
Rs.1,60,000/- (each claimant Rs.40,000/-), Rs.5,000/- awarded towards Funeral
expenses by tribunal, is hereby enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Subsequently, under the
heads of Loss of Estate, Transportation charges, this Court is awarded the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively.
9.5.These amounts are retained, subject to the overall permissible limits
applicable to the claim, by the tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is awarded the
amount under the above said heads respectively.
9.6.Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated and enhanced by taking
the above loss of dependency. The contributory negligence of 30% attributable to
the deceased shall thereafter be deducted from the total compensation, and the
remaining 70% shall be payable by the Transport Corporation.
9.7.Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and
enhanced to the extent indicated above. The finding regarding negligence is
maintained at 30% on the deceased and 70% on the driver of the Transport
Corporation bus.
10.Conclusion:
10.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the claimant is re-determined as follows:-
Amount
awarded by the
Re-quantified
Sl.
Heads
No.
amount by
Status
Tribunal
this Court
(in Rs.)
(in Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 18,71,252/- 46,68,912/- Enhanced
2 Loss of Consortium 10,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
Loss of love and
affection (each
Rs.40,000/- to the
claimant 2 to 5 by this
Court)
30,000/- 1,60,000/- Enhanced
3
4 Loss of Estate ------- 15,000/- Awarded
5 Transportation Charges -------- 10,000/- Awarded
4 Funeral expenses 5,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.19,16,252/- Rs.49,18,912/-
Deduction of 30%
contributory negligence to
Rs.14,75,674/-
the deceased
Total Entitled Amount Rs.19,16,252/- Rs.34,43,238/- Enhanced
11.Result:
11.1.In the result, the C.M.A.(MD).No.514 of 2023 is partly allowed .
11.2.The award dated 07.06.2013 in M.C.O.P. No. 144 of 2010 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Theni is hereby
enhanced from Rs.19,16,252/- to Rs.34,43,238 /-, together with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.
11.3.The finding of the Tribunal fixing 30% contributory negligence on the
deceased and 70% negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus is
hereby confirmed. The compensation is enhanced by recalculating the loss of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
dependency by granting 50% towards future prospects.
11.4.The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced amount,
corresponding to its liability of 70%, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, after giving credit
to the amount already deposited, if not already deposited, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
11.5.On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in
accordance with the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs.
02.11.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
AKM
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court,
Theni.
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 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
AKM
C.M.A.(MD).No.514 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )
CMA(MD) NO. 514 of 2023
Dated: 02.11.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:48:11 am )