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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...