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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more