Madras HC Upholds ₹39.5 Lakh Award For Engineer Killed By Bus, Accepting ₹30,000 Monthly Income Despite Older Singapore Payslips

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the accident occurred due to the bus driver’s negligence, rather than the deceased’s negligence.

The court held

The Court answered both issues against the Corporation, found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 39,52,600, and dismissed the appeal.

It also directed

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award with accrued interest, if not already deposited, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment; disbursement was to follow the apportionment in the Tribunal’s award.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

On 1 October 2015, Velmurugan, aged 29, was riding a two-wheeler on Trichy–Tanjore Road when a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus struck it from behind; he died at the scene.

pp. 2–3, 6–7

A criminal case was registered against the bus driver, and the Tribunal relied, among other evidence, on eyewitness P.W.2 in finding the bus driver negligent.

pp. 2–3, 6–7

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the claimants Rs. 39,52,600, including Rs. 38,55,600 for loss of dependency, calculating monthly income at Rs. 30,000.

p. 3

The Corporation appealed, disputing both negligence and the income assessment. The first respondent died during the appeal, and respondents 3 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives.

pp. 1, 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the accident occurred due to the bus driver’s negligence, rather than the deceased’s negligence.

pp. 4–6

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 30,000, and the resulting loss-of-dependency award, was excessive or unsupported by the evidence.

pp. 4–5, 7–9

03Law Applied

Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must be just and reasonable.

p. 10

In assessing loss of dependency, the Court applied National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the 40% addition for future prospects applicable to the deceased’s age, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the one-half deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier of 17 for a person aged 29.

p. 9

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 168

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279

04Reasoning

On negligence, the Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment: P.W.2’s eyewitness account supported the claimants’ case, and the Corporation’s witness did not displace that evidence.

pp. 6–7

On income, the deceased’s engineering qualifications and employment documents showing work as a Singapore-based site engineer supported the Tribunal’s assessment; the Court held that those documents could not be rejected merely because they predated the accident by about two years.

pp. 7–9

Although the documents indicated higher earnings, the Tribunal had fixed income at only Rs. 30,000 per month, which the Court considered reasonable.

pp. 7–9

Applying the cited principles on future prospects, personal expenses and multiplier, the Court upheld the dependency calculation and found the overall compensation just and reasonable.

pp. 9–10