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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more