Skip to main content

High court orders TNSTC to pay 20.76 lakh to kin of accident victim

The Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Friday upheld an order of a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Trichy, awarding Rs 20.76 lakh to the family of a government school headmistress who died in an accident in 2006.

While upholding the tribunal's order, the division bench of justices V Dhanapalan and V M Velumani dismissed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Pudukottai.

The case pertains to the death of Lukkas Mary, who was working as headmistress at a panchayat middle school at Konnayampatti in Ponnamaravathi union in Pudukottai district.

Mary died on November 13, 2006 while riding pillion on a two-wheeler with her friend Irudayraj Leo on Pudukottai-Manaparai Road. She was on her way to a bank when a TNSTC bus coming in the opposite direction dashed against the two-wheeler. Though Leo escaped with minor injuries, Mary fell on the road and was crushed by the rear wheels of the bus. Mary died on the spot.

Claiming Rs 25 lakh as compensation with the rate of 12 % interest, Mary's husband P Simon Peter and their two children, Paul Pradeep and Jennifer Sofia, both minors then, filed a petition with the tribunal in 2007.

After two years of trial, the tribunal ordered the TNSTC, Pudukottai, to pay a compensation of Rs 20.76 with the rate of 7.5% interest in November 27, 2007.

The TNSTC filed an appeal in the high court challenging the tribunal's award arguing that the accident took place due to the negligence driving of both the drivers of the bus and two-wheeler and the tribunal had erred in fixing the liability only on the TNSTC alone.

The tribunal also failed to take into account the benefits such as pension the family of the victim would receive as she was a government employee, the appeal said.

After hearing arguments of both the sides, the high court bench said it is well settled that when two vehicles are responsible for an accident, claim can be made on any one of the owner of the vehicles and the tribunal had applied the ratio in proper perspective. The claim can be made only against the transport, the court said.

As far as quantum of compensation was concerned, the bench said it found no reason to interfere with the tribunal's order. "In the absence of any evidence to disprove the age and income of the deceased, also taking into account of the family circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum awarded by the tribunal and accordingly, it is confirmed in all respects," the bench said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/High-court-orders-TNSTC-to-pay-20-76-lakh-to-kin-of-accident-victim/articleshow/45582732.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even