Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division III, Nagercoil v Abdul Azeez S/O Muhammed Khan and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.07.2010 IN OPMV 1928/2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADURAI DIVISION III, NAGERCOIL. BY ADV SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC ## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:** 1 ABDUL AZEEZ S/O.MUHAMMED KHAN, RUFIYA MANZIL, PRAKKATHERI PUTHEN VEEDU, IDICHAKKAPLAMOODU, PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695502. - 2 SUHARA BEEVI W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, -DO- - 3 MUHAMMED NIYAS S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, -DO- 4 FATHIMA BEEVI D/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, -DO- 5 MASTER SALMANKHAN S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, -DO-. 6 MARIA ARUL S/O.VELUPILLAI, DOOR NO.21/1/194/1, NEAR IDAYAM R.C.CHURCH, IDAYAM, KEEZHAMKULAMN VILLAGE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629001. 7 NABISADU MUHAMMED S/O.HANEEFA, KUDAPPANAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.- **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 2** 695510. 8 M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY DIVISION OFFICE NO 1,THAKARAPARAMBU JUNCTION,PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036 BY ADVS. SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 3** Dated this the 5[th] day of January,2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellant was the first respondent in O.P (MV) No.1928/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal were the petitioners and the respondents 6 to 8 in the appeal were the respondents 2 to 4 before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Nijamudeen alias Nijam (deceased), the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of petitioners 3 to 5. It was their case that, on 14.08.2004, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 01-AB-9142 along the Karali-Parassala public ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 4** road, a bus bearing registration No. TN 74-N 0455 (Bus), hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased lost his life instantaneously. The respondents 1 and 2 were the owner and driver of the bus and respondents 3 and 4 were the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. The deceased was doing hire purchase business and earning a monthly income of Rs.5000/-. The deceased was 19 years at the time of his death. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners claimed compensation from the respondents. 3. The pillion rider on the motorcycle had filed O.P.(M.V.) No.1900/2004 before the same Tribunal, seeking compensation from the respondents on account of the injuries sustained to him in the accident. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed separate written statements in both the claim petitions refuting ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 5** the allegations in the claim petitions. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. They also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No.1900/2004. 5. The third respondent did not contest the proceeding. 6. The fourth respondent had filed separate written statements in both the claim petitions contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent/ the driver of the bus. Hence, the fourth respondent prayed that it may be exonerated of its liability. 7. The Tribunal jointly tried the two claim petitions and by the impugned common award, allowed the captioned claim petition in part, by permitting the petitioners to recover from the first respondent an amount of Rs.3,42,500/- with interest ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 6** and cost. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the first respondent is in appeal. 9. Heard; Sri. Subash Syriac the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first respondent. 10. The principle grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:- (i) the Tribunal ought to have found that the deceased was negligent in causing the accident, (ii) the Tribunal ought to have adopted a lesser multiplier (iii) the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is without any basis. ## **Ground No.(i)** 11. Admittedly, as per Exhibit A8 final report filed by the Parassala Police in Crime No.404/2004, the accident happened due to the negligence of the second respondent. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Exhibit A8 final report. Therefore, the findings of the police regarding **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 7** negligence in Exhibit A8 final report is only to be accepted going by the law laid down by this Court in **New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal** [2011 (3) KLT 648]. Hence, I answer ground No.(i) against the appellant. ## **Ground No.(ii)** 12. The deceased was aged 19 years at the time of accident. In fact the Tribunal adopted the multiplier at ‘15’, which is wrong in view of the law laid down in **Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[(2009) 6 SCC 121],** wherein the relevant multiplier laid down is ‘18’. Hence, I do not find any force or substance in the contention of the appellant that the multiplier of ‘15’ adopted by the Tribunal is wrong. Hence, I answer ground No.(ii) also against the appellant. ## **Ground No.(iii)** 13. The Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 8** income of the deceased at Rs.2500/-. The accident occurred in the year 2004. 14. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs. 4500/- per month. Therefore, the notional monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, I answer ground No.(iii) also against the appellant. 15. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not find any error in the impugned award. 16. It is to be born in mind that the accident occurred in the year 2004. It is more than 16 years since the respondents 1 to 5 have been knocking at the doors of the courts seeking compensation. It is **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 9** trite law that, the Tribunals are permitted to do some work and also exercise its discretion in guess awarding reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straight jacket formula based on mathematical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has after a threadbare analysis of the facts, judicially exercised its powers based on the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the authoritative precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court while arriving at the conclusion in the impugned award. I am convinced that there are no justifiable grounds in the memorandum of appeal warranting the admission of appeal that too after a period of seven years. It would only be a wastage of judicial time and harassment to the respondents 1 to 5 to admit the appeal at this stage. 17. The Honourable Supreme Court in **New** **Indian Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kiran Singh &** ## **MACA NO. 612 OF 2014 10** **Others** [2004 AIR SEW 4212] has depreciated the practice of contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. 18. In the result, following the ratio in **Kiran Singh** (supra), and exercising the powers of this Court under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I hold the appeal is devoid of any merits and does not warrant admission. Resultantly, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold. It is made clear that the respondents 1 to 5 would be at liberty to move the Tribunal for execution of the impugned award in accordance with law. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. SD/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/5/1/2022