01Facts
The claimants, dependants of S.M. Samy, sought compensation for his death in a collision on 1 March 2010. He was riding a two-wheeler and attempting to overtake a lorry when he entered the path of an oncoming Transport Corporation bus; he fell and was run over
¶ 2.1–2.3, 8.1The Tribunal attributed 30% contributory negligence to the deceased and 70% negligence to the bus driver, awarding Rs.19,16,252 with interest at 7.5% per annum
¶ 3.1–3.2The claimants appealed, challenging the negligence finding and seeking enhanced compensation, including future prospects and higher conventional damages
¶ 4.1–4.202Issues
i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 30% contributory negligence to the deceased and 70% negligence to the bus driver
¶ 7(i)ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement
¶ 7(ii)03Law Applied
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
A person’s completed age is determined by completed years, not the running year; the Court relied on Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 4 SCC 59, and Eerati Laxman v. State of A.P., (2009) 3 SCC 337
¶ 9.1Applying the future-prospects principle stated in the judgment, a person below 40 years is entitled to a 50% addition
¶ 9.1–9.2The Court also relied on Rehana Rahimbhai Kasambhai v. The Transport Manager, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, AIR 1976 Guj 37 (DB), for the principle that drivers of heavy, mechanically operated vehicles bear a heightened duty of care and must keep a proper lookout
¶ 8.3Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The sketch showed that the deceased crossed the middle of the road while overtaking and entered the bus’s lane, supporting the finding that he contributed to the accident. However, the bus driver also had a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid the collision, including slowing down, braking or moving further left where space was available. The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s 30:70 apportionment
¶ 8.1–8.4On quantum, the deceased had completed 39 years at the time of the accident and was therefore entitled to 50% future prospects. The Court recalculated dependency using monthly income of Rs.21,615, a 1/5 deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 15, then revised the conventional heads
¶ 9.1–9.605Holding
The appeal was partly allowed. The Court confirmed the 30% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased and recalculated gross compensation at Rs.49,18,912; after deducting 30%, the payable amount was fixed at Rs.34,43,238, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition
¶ 10.1–11.3The Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the amount corresponding to its 70% liability, after credit for any amount already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimants may withdraw the compensation in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment
¶ 11.4–11.5Original Court PDF
S.AmuthavsTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
