{"id":86968,"date":"2008-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008"},"modified":"2015-11-10T23:08:42","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T17:38:42","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 05\/01\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A(MD)Nos.309 of 2004\nC.M.A(MD)Nos. 310, 312, 315, 317 of 2004\nC.M.A(MD)Nos. 318 of 2004\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.309 of 2007\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd.,\nMadurai Division I,\nOffice at No.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1.M.Mahendran\n2.M.Maruthupandian\n3.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  rep. by its Branch Manager,\n  Sathur.\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in MCOP.No.196 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n^For Respondent No.1\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\nFor Respondent No.2\t\t... No appearance\nFor Respondent No.3\t\t... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.310 of 2007:\n\n#The Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corp. Ltd.,\nMadurai Division I,\nOffice at No.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n$1.Issakithai alias Rani\n2.Subhaalakshmi\n  (R2 represented by her\n   mother R1)\n3.Shanmugadevar\n4.M.Maruthupandian\n5.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  rep. by its Branch Manager,\n  Sathur.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in MCOP.No.464 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n^For RR1 to 3\t\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\nFor Respondent No.4\t\t... No appearance\nFor Respondent No.5\t\t... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.312 of 2007:\n\n#The Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd.,\nMadurai Division I,\nOffice at No.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n$1.V.Subramaniapillai\n2.S.Gomathi\n3.M.Maruthupandian\n4.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  rep. by its Branch Manager,\n  Sathur.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in MCOP.No.199 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\n\t\n!For Appellant\t\t... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t\tfor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n^For RR1 and 2\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\nFor Respondent No.3\t... No appearance\nFor Respondent No.4\t... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.315 of 2007:\n\n#The Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd.,\nMadurai Division I,\nOffice at No.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n$1.R.Sankaran Pillai\n2.S.Vembu\n3.M.Maruthupandian\n4.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  rep. by its Branch Manager,\n  Sathur.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in MCOP.No.196 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n^For RR1 and 2\t\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\nFor Respondent No.3\t\t... No appearance\nFor Respondent No.4\t\t... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.317 of 2007:\n\n#The Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd.,\nMadurai Division I,\nOffice at No.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n$1.S.Shanmuganathan\n2.Kaliammal\n3.M.Maruthupandian\n4.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  rep. by its Branch Manager,\n  Sathur.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in MCOP.No.197 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t\t   for Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n^For RR1 and 2\t\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\nFor Respondent No.3\t\t... No appearance\nFor Respondent No.4\t\t... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.318 of 2007:\n\n#The Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd.,\nMadurai Division I,\nOffice at No.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n$1.A.Shanmugavadivu\n2.Minor Petchiammal\n3.Minor Vanitha\n4.Minor Pandi\n5.Minor Thenmozhi\n  (R2 to R5 represented by\n   their mother R1)\n6.M.Maruthupandian\n7.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  rep. by its Branch Manager,\n  Sathur.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in MCOP.No.200 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n^For RR1 to 5\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\nFor Respondent No.6\t... No appearance\nFor Respondent No.7\t... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\tThese Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed to get set aside the\njudgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.196, 197, 198, 199, 200 and 464 of\n2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Fast Track Court No.I,\nTirunelveli.\t\n\n\t2. These cases form part of a batch cases, a part which were decided by\nthis Court on 20.12.2007.  However, these cases were separated from that batch\npurely for the purpose of deciding on the quantum of compensation as in these\ncases decided on 20.12.2007 as the quantum of compensation was not in dispute\nbut only the apportionment of negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles was\ndealt with and decided.  As such the common Judgment dated 20.12.2007 in\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1320 of 2007 batch cases shall form part of this common Judgment\nrelating apportionment of negligence and the liability to pay the compensation.\n\n\t3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport\nCorporation, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as  the\nlearned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Sathur  and\nnotice to the owner of the van i.e., M.Maruthupandian is dispensed with as he\nremained ex-parte before the Tribunal.\n\n\t4. The learned counsel for the claimants would pray that the compensation\nmight be enhanced even though no cross objections have been filed by the\nclaimants, placing reliance on Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C. and the various\ndecisions emerged thereunder, whereas the learned counsel for the appellant\nTransport Corporation would cite the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Swaminathan & Ors. reported in II(2006)ACC\n701(SC) and develop his arguments to the effect that unless there is a cross\nobjection, the question of enhancing the compensation would not arise.  Hence,\nit is just and necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Swaminathan & Ors. reported in II(2006)ACC\n701(SC).  An excerpt from it would run thus:\n\t\"Apparently the first respondent claimant was satisfied with the\nTribunal's Award as he did not file any appeal there against to the High Court.\nNonetheless, being aggrieved by the Single Judge's judgment, the claimant filed\na Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.  This\nappeal was allowed and by the impugned judgment the High Court has awarded total\ncompensation amounting to Rs.7,44,000\/- under different heads with a direction\nfor payment of interest at 18% from the date of petition.  The appellant-\nInsurance Company is aggrieved thereby and is in appeal before us.\n\tThe issue that arises in this case is, whether the Division Bench of the\nHigh Court was justified in increasing the compensation amount beyond the amount\nawarded by the Tribunal despite the fact that the Award of the Tribunal was not\nat all challenged by the claimant.  The only reason given by the Division Bench\nof the High Court for doing so is:\n\t\"In this connection, we may observe that we are aware of the fact that we\nare enhancing the compensation even though the injured has not claimed it.  But,\nthe question is covered by catena of decisions justifying enhancement of\ncompensation even if cases where the injured has not preferred an appeal,\nprovided the circumstances of the case warrants the same\".\n\tTo say the least, this was a very facial way of interfering with the award\nwhen no interference was called for.  We called upon the learned Counsel on both\nsides to show us at least one case (out of the catena of judgments referred to\nin the impugned judgment) in support of this proposition.  Learned counsel\nfrankly confessed that there was none.  On the other hand, the learned Counsel\nfor the appellant drew our attention the judgment of this Court in Banarsi v.\nRam Phal,<\/a> reported in II(2003)SLT258=(2003)9 SCC 606, which supports the\nproposition that in an appeal filed by the defendant laying challenge to the\ngrant a smaller relief, the plaintiff as a respondent cannot seek a higher\nrelief if he had not filed an appeal on his own or had not taken any cross-\nobjection.  In the present appeal it would appear that the claimant neither\nappealed against the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal, nor filed any\ncross-objection in the first appeal filed by the Insurance Company.  Thus, we\nare satisfied that the Division Bench of the High Court wholly erred in\nincreasing the compensation amount beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal in\nthe appeal filed by the Insurance Company\".\n\n\t5. A mere perusal of the excerpt from the said decision would clearly show\nthat the Hon'ble Apex Court in that decision has not laid down as a universal\nrule of interpretation under Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C.  Taking into\nconsideration, the method and manner in which the Division Bench of this Court\nin Letters Patent Appeal and that too without citing adequate reasons and\nprecedents enhanced the compensation amount to an extent of Rs.7,44,000\/- with\n18% interest from that of Rs.3,00,000\/- awarded by the Single Bench of the same\nCourt, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with it.\n\n\t6. Furthermore, the above excerpt also would reveal that without even\nrelying upon any precedent, the Division Bench of this Court, simply enhanced\nthe compensation and that too the extent of double that of what the Single Judge\nof this Court ordered. It is also clear that when the Hon'ble Apex Court wanted\na precedent in that regard, the learned counsel for the appellant therein cited\nonly the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Banarsi v. Ram Phal,<\/a> reported in\nII(2003)SLT258=(2003)9 SCC 606.  As such, that perculiar facts and circumstances\nof the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court felt that the power under order 41, Rule 33\nof C.P.C. invoked by the High Court and that too in a case where such an\nenhancement was not at all warranted, looked askance as if.  As such it is clear\nthat the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has not laid down the law that\neven in a fit case, the High Court should invoke Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C. in\nthe absence of filing cross appeal.  Furthermore under Order 41, Rule 33, there\nare earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which could be cited as under:\n\t(i) Municipal Board, Mount Abu v. Hari Lal reported in 1988 ACJ 281.\n\t(ii) Dangir v. Madan Mohna reported in AIR 1988 SC.54.\n\t(iii) M.D. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., v. Kalavathi reported in\n1998(1)ACJ-151.\n\t(iv) State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh<\/a> reported in 1998(8)S.C.C.222.\n\n\t7. The perusal of the aforesaid Judgments of the  Hon'ble Apex Court would\nclearly show that without filing cross appeal, the respondents in the appeal\ncould pray for reliefs and that the High Court under Order 41, Rule 33 could\ngrant such reliefs also.  This Court in several cases adhering to the aforesaid\ndecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C.,\nthis Court could enhance the compensation in appropriate cases.  An excerpt from\nthe decision of this Court in Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport\nCorp., Villupuram v. Sundari Ammal and<\/a> four Others reported in 1999(II)CTC 560\nwould run thus:\n\t\"Unfortunately, in the instant case, there is no cross-objection.\nTherefore, it would be essential, in this context, to consider whether this\nCourt has got powers to enhance the amount of compensation, in the event of\ncoming to the conclusion that the award was on the lower side, even though there\nis no cross-objection by the claimants.\n\tIn Dangir v. Madan Mohan, AIR 1988 S.C. 54 and M.D., Pallavan Transport\nCorporation Ltd., v. Kalavathi, 1998(1)A.C.J 151, it is held that this Court has\ngot power to enhance the compensation, even though the claimants had not filed\nany cross-objection against the award seeking for higher compensation, if this\nCourt finds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and adequate.\n\tAs pointed out by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh,<\/a>\n1998(8) S.C.C.222, the reading of the provision would make it clear that the\nappellate court has got wide power to do complete justice between the parties\nand which enables this Court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been\npassed or as the nature of the case may require notwithstanding that the party\nin whose favour the power is sought to be exercised has not filed any appeal or\ncross-objection.\n\tThe Apex Court in Dhangir v. Madan Mohan, A.I.R.1988 S.C.54,<\/a> be referring\nOrder 41, Rule 33, would make the following observation:\n\t\"The appellate court could exercise the power under Rule 33 even if the\nappeal is only against a part of the decree of the lower court.  The appellate\ncourt could exercise that power in favour of all or any of the respondents\nalthough such respondent may not have filed any appeal or objection.  The sweep\nof the power under Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only\nbetween the appellant and respondent, but also between respondent and co-\nrespondents.  The appellate court could pass any decree or order which ought to\nhave been passed in the circumstances of the case.  The words 'as the case may\nbe require' used in Rule 33 Order 41 have been put in wide terms to enable the\nappellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of Justice.  What\nthen should be the constraint? We do not find many.  we are giving any liberal\ninterpretation.  The rule itself is liberal enough.  the only constraints that\nwe could see may be these:  That the parties before the lower court should be\nthere before the appellate court.  The question raised must properly arise out\nof judgment of the lower court.  If these two requirements are there, the\nappellate court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or\ndecree of the lower court.  It is true that the power of the appellate court\nunder S.33 is discretionary.  But, it is a proper exercise of judicial\ndiscretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice\nbetween the parties.  The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on\nmere technicalities\".\n\t\n\t8. And then the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in the\nManaging Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri v.\nJanardhanam and<\/a> 7 others reported in 2000(II) CTC 272 placing reliance on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court held a similar view that without cross appeal\nOrder 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C. could be invoked in appropriate cases.  An excerpt\nfrom it would run thus:\n\t\"At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent\/claimants\nwould submit that the Tribunal has awarded interest only from the date of the\nJudgment and not from the date of the petition.  The learned counsel for the\nrespondents\/claimants would submit that even though no appeal has been filed by\nthe respondents\/claimants or no cross objections have been filed by them, this\nCourt has discretionary power by virtue of Order 41, Rule 33 of Code of Civil\nProcedure and also in view of the rulings of the Supreme court in Dhangir v.\nMadan Mohan, AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 54 to grant the proper relief.  Of course, the Apex\nCourt has pointed out in clear and categorical terms and the power conferred\nunder Order 41, Rule 33 on the appellate Court is discretionary, and then it\nmust be used in proper case using the judicial discretion to render justice.\nThe Apex Court in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Narendra Pandurang Kadam\nand others<\/a>, 1995(1) SCC 320 has clearly laid down that the rate of interest must\nbe awarded from the date of the petition and not from the date of the Judgment\".\n\t\n\t9. Over and above that the decision of the Hon'ble Three Judges' Bench of\nthe Hon'ble Apex Court, in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others<\/a> reported in\n2003 ACJ 12 could be cited here under relating to Motor Accidents Cases.  An\nexcerpt from it would run thus:\n\t\"Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the M.V. Act'), there is no restriction that compensation could\nbe awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant.  In an appropriate\ncase where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal\/court considers that\nclaimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may\npass such award.  Only embargo is-it should be 'just' compensation, that is to\nsay, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the\nevidence.  This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the\nM.V. Act.  Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out\nof an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out\nof the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so\narising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury;\nor (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the\naccident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by\nany agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal\nrepresentatives of the deceased, as the case may be.  Under the proviso to sub-\nsection(1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as\nthe claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for\ncompensation.  Other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which\nprovides that \"the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded\nto it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation\nunder this Act\".  Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the\nreport forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such\nclaim is made or no specified amount is claimed\".\n\t\n\t10. It is therefore clear that in the interest of awarding just\ncompensation when the High Court is seized of the matter, irrespective of any\ncross objection filed in appropriate and deserving cases, which fact I would\nlike to stress, can interfere by invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C.\n\n11.C.M.A.(MD)No.309 of 2004:\n\tThe Tribunal awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.33,000\/- (Rupees thirty\nthree thousand only) under the following sub-heads:\n\tFor permanent disability\t-Rs.10,000\/-\n\tFor loss of earning\n\t capacity\t\t\t\t-Rs. 4,000\/-\n\tFor extra nourishment\t\t-Rs. 3,000\/-\n\tFor pain and sufferings\t-Rs.15,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t------------\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\tTotal\t\t-Rs.32,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t————\n<\/p>\n
(However the Tribunal \tmistakenly calculated it at Rs.33,000\/- (Rupees thirty
\nthree thousand only)<\/p>\n
\t12. So far this case is concerned, the learned counsel for the first
\nrespondent\/claimant would pray for enhancing the compensation.  The learned
\ncounsel for the appellant Transport Corporation as well as the learned counsel
\nfor the third respondent\/ Insurance company would oppose the prayer on the
\nground that for 10% permanent disability and that too for the claimant having
\nsustained fracture of his nasal loop, the awarding of compensation at the rate
\nof Rs.1000\/- (Rupees one thousand only) for each percentage of permanent
\ndisability was very much reasonable that that was the rate applied by the
\nTribunals uniformly at that time and that the compensation should not be fixed
\ntaking into account the prevailing rate, when the appeal is heard by the High
\nCourt.  I could see considerable force in his submission, but the claimant
\nherein sustained such fracture during the year 2001 and he was a young man of 19
\nyears old.  In such a case, awarding Rs.2000\/- (Rupees two thousand only) for
\neach percentage of permanent disability would meet the ends of justice and
\nawarding of Rs.1000\/- (Rupees one thousand only) for each percentage of
\npermanent disability would be very much on the lower side.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. However, under the caption pain and sufferings for 10% of permanent
\ndisability, Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) was awarded, which could
\nbe reduced to Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Towards loss of income for the treatment period and the convalescent
\nperiod, a sum of Rs.4,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Relating to taking nutritious food, a sum of Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees three
\nthousand only) was awarded, which also could be confirmed.  Accordingly, the
\ncompensation is modified as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tFor permanent disability\t-Rs.20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of earning
\n\t capacity\t\t\t-Rs. 4,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor extra nourishment\t\t-Rs. 3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor pain and sufferings\t\t-Rs.10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————
\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.37,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.C.M.A.No.310 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.3,23,600\/- (Rupees three
\nlakhs twenty three thousand and six hundred only) under the following sub-heads:\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of income\t\t-Rs.2,85,600\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\taffection and future
\n\t\tguidance\t\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor mental agony and shock\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of consortium\t\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————–
\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.3,23,600\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t17. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3\/claimants would
\ncontend that the compensation amount may be enhanced significantly as the
\nTribunal did choose a sum of Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only) as the
\nmonthly income of the deceased aged about 22 years old, who was working as a
\nmason; whereas the learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation as
\nwell as the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent\/Insurance Company
\nin unison would contend that the Tribunal has chosen the appropriate amount as
\nthe earning capacity of the individual.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. I could see that the Tribunal has assessed the correct amount as the
\nincome of the deceased for the reason that during the year 2001, a young man of
\n22 years old could not have become a fulfledged mason and at the most he could
\nhave been only an assistant mason earning not more than Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees two
\nthousand only) per month.  Hence, in these circumstances, I do not consider that
\nany variation is required in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at
\nRs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Towards funeral expenses, Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) was
\nawarded and towards loss of consortium a sum of Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen
\nthousand only) was awarded, which could be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Towards loss of love and affection and future guidance, a sum of
\nRs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only) was awarded which could be taken as the
\none for the minor child of the deceased.  So far the father of the deceased is
\nconcerned, no compensation towards loss of love and affection, was awarded and
\nhence a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only) could be awarded towards
\nloss of love and affection for the father of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The Tribunal erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten
\nthousand only) under the caption mental agony and shock, where there was no
\ntreatment taken by the deceased before his death   and the compensation awarded
\nunder the caption mental agony and shock has to be deleted and accordingly
\ndeleted.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Towards transport expenses, no compensation was awarded and that
\nRs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only) could be awarded under that sub-head.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.2,85,600\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\taffection and future
\n\tguidance\tfor R2\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\taffection for
\n\tR3(father)\t\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of consortium\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor transport expenses\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t————–
\n\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.3,25,600\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23.C.M.A.No.312 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.2,75,000\/- (Rupees two
\nlakhs and seventy five thousand only) under the following sub-heads:
\n\tFor loss of income\t\t-Rs.2,52,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\t\taffection\t\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor mental agony\t\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————–
\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.2,75,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t24. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation as well as
\nthe learned counsel for the fourth respondent\/Insurance Company in unison would
\nsubmit that the awarding of compensation of Rs.2,75,000\/- (Rupees two lakhs and
\nseventy five thousand only) by the Tribunal in favour of the parents of the
\ndeceased unmarried lad of 23 years old, is on the higher side; whereas the
\nlearned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2\/claimants would submit that as
\nper G.O.(2)No.102, Dt.22.09.1999 relating to the minimum wages, a driver should
\nhave been paid Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month.  However, the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would highlight that in
\nthis case the evidence is to the effect that the deceased was working as a
\nmechanic.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. It is a well known fact that a young man of 23 years old, working in a
\nmechanic shop during the year 2001 might have got a sum of Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees
\ntwo thousand only) per month and nothing more as correctly assessed by the
\nTribunal.  No contrary argument based on any evidence is forthcoming from the
\nclaimants’ side that the deceased was earning more than that.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. The Tribunal also deducted only a sum of Rs.600\/- (Rupees six hundred
\nonly) towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for
\nmaintaining himself had he been alive and has taken the monthly dependency as a
\nsum of Rs.1,400\/- (Rupees one thousand and four hundred only) and according
\nworked out the annual dependency at Rs.16,800\/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and
\neight hundred only).\n<\/p>\n
\t27. The multiplier 15 was chosen by the Tribunal, even though the parents
\nwere aged about 52 and 45.  As such in my opinion the appropriate multiplier
\nwould be 13 and not 15 as the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, has chosen
\nthe multiplier as 13 only.  Here the decedents are not the claimants, but only
\nthe parents and hence the multiplier 13 is the appropriate one.  Hence, the
\ncompensation under the head loss of income shall be re-fixed at Rs.2,18,400\/-
\n(Rupees two lakhs eighteen thousand and four hundred only)  (16,800 x 13 =
\n2,18,400).\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees three thousand
\nonly) was awarded, which could be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. Towards mental agony a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only
\nwas awarded, which has to be deleted as it is a mere case of death at the spot.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand
\nonly) towards loss of love and affection, even though there are two claimants.
\nAs such in favour of each claimant, a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand
\nonly) should be awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Towards transport expenses a sum of Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand
\nonly) has to be awarded, which was not awarded by the Tribunal.  Accordingly,
\nthe compensation is modified as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.2,18,400\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\t\taffection\t-Rs.  20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor transport expenses\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t————–
\n\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.2,43,400\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
32.C.M.A.No.315 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.1,20,000\/- (Rupees one
\nlakh and twenty thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t33. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2\/claimants would
\nsubmit that for the death of a boy of 16 years old, the Tribunal awarded the
\ntotal compensation of Rs.1,20,000\/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand only),
\nwhereas the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation as well as
\nthe Insurance Company in unison would submit that the compensation awarded by
\nthe Tribunal need not be interfered with as he was a non-earning person so to
\nsay a student at the relevant time of his death.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
\nApex Court in Kaushlya Devi v. Karan Arora & Ors.<\/a> reported in AIR 2007 Supreme
\nCourt 1912.  An excerpt from the said decision would run thus:
\n\t“In case of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound,
\nneither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future
\nincrease in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable
\nof proper determination on estimated basis.  The reason is that at such an early
\nage, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in
\ncareer and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be
\nassumed with reasonable certainty.  Therefore, neither the income of the
\ndeceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial
\nloss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation”.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. However, the aforesaid decision has to be read harmoneously with the
\nearlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manju Devi and another v. Musafir
\nPaswan and another reported in 2005(1)TAC.609(S.C.).  An excerpt from it would
\nrun thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra,<\/a> 1996
\nA.C.J. 831 : 1996 (2) T.A.C.286 (S.C.), it has been held by this Court that
\nthere should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that
\npayment being made is just compensation.  It has been held that the multiplier
\nmethod must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just
\ncompensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards
\nmade all over the country.  In view of this authority, it will have to be held
\nthat the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method.
\n\tAs set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a
\nboy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied.  As per the
\nSecond Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000\/- must be
\ntaken as the income.  Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000\/-“.
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t36. The cumulative reading of the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon’ble
\nApex Court would show that the multiplier has to be applied even in the case of
\ndeath of a boy, who is a non-earning person.  Taking a cue from the second
\nschedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act relating to non-earning person a sum
\nof Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) can be taken as notional income.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. I would like to point out that taking a cue from the Second Schedule
\nappended to the Motor Vehicles Act relating to a non-earning person a sum of
\nRs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) could rightly be taken as the annual
\nincome of the deceased boy as it has been done in various other cases also.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. At this juncture I would like to highlight as to how to construe the
\nratio-decidendi of a decision of the Honourable Apex Court.  If the Honourable
\nApex Court render a judgment on a contentious issue certainly that would
\nconstitutes ratio-decidenti, which would be binding on all the Courts below.
\nHowever in Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan reported in 2005(1) T.A.C. 609 (S.C.)
\nthe Honourable Apex Court without deciding any specific issue relating to
\ndeduction of 1\/3rd towards expenditure which the deceased would have incurred
\nfor maintaining himself, awarded compensation. In  U.P. State Road Transport
\nCorporation v. Trilok Chandra<\/a> reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362 the
\nHonourable Apex Court mandates that such 1\/3rd of the income should be deducted.
\nNow catena of the latest decisions of the Honourable Apex Court mandate
\ndeduction of such 1\/3rd from the income of the deceased.   Hence, for the
\naforesaid reasons I disagree with the argument that 1\/3rd amount should not be
\ndeducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for
\nmaintaining himself had he been alive.   Even though Motor Vehicles Act is a
\nbenevolent legislation, yet the principles relating to interpretation of statues
\nshould be necessarily followed and evidence should be demanded by the Court
\nbefore awarding compensation under any sub-head.  To point out one such decision
\nI would like to refer to the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena
\nVariyal<\/a> reported in (2007)5 Supreme Court Cases 428.  Hence,  I am of the
\nconsidered opinion that out of the notional income 1\/3rd amount has to be
\ndeducted towards the expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for
\nmaintaining himself had he been alive.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. Deducting 1\/3rd out of Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) the
\nannual dependency comes to Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only).  Here the
\nclaimants are the parents and as such the multiplier has to be chosen taking
\ninto account their average age.  The father happened to be 39 years old and the
\nmother was 38 years old and as such their average age comes above 35 and below\n<\/p>\n
40.  They are not elderly people but for the untimely death of their son, they
\nwould have got support during the rest of their long lives.  Hence, the
\nmultiplier 16 could rightly be chosen. I am fully aware of the fact that in all
\ncases the multiplier as found suggested in the Second Schedule appended to the
\nMotor Vehicles Act need not be taken as conclusive.  But, here in this case, the
\nlearned counsel for the respondents\/ claimants would convincingly and correctly
\nargue that the parents of the deceased were made to suffer from mental agony and
\ntorture because of the untimely bereavement of their son.  It is obvious and
\naxiomatic that but for their son’s demise, he would have been a significant
\nsource of support to them in their old age. Hence, I do not incline to vary the
\nmultiplier 16.  The compensation, therefore under the head ‘loss of income’
\nshall be re-fixed at Rs.1,60,000\/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty thousand only)
\n(Rs.10,000 x 16 = 1,60,000).\n<\/p>\n
\t40. Relating to loss of love and affection a sum of Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees
\nfifteen thousand only);  towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees
\nthree thousand only); towards transport expenses a sum of Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees two
\nthousand only) could be awarded.  Accordingly, the compensation is modified as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.1,60,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\t\taffection\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor transport expenses\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTotal\t\t-Rs.1,80,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p>\n
41.C.M.A.No.317 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.1,96,400\/- (Rupees one
\nlakh ninety six thousand and four hundred only) under the following sub-heads:
\n\tFor \tloss of income\t-Rs.1,73,400\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\t\taffection\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor mental agony\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t————–
\n\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.1,96,400\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t42. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation and the
\nlearned counsel for the third respondent\/Insurance Company in unison would
\nsubmit that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant compensation of Rs.1,96,400\/-
\n(Rupees one lakh ninety six thousand and four hundred only) for the death of a
\nyoung man of 21 years old, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
\nand 2\/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded itself is on the
\nlower side.\n<\/p>\n
\t43. The perusal of the records would reveal that the Tribunal took into
\naccount the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen
\nthousand only) and applied the multiplier 17 taking into account the age of the
\nparents as 52 and 46.\n<\/p>\n
\t44. In this case, since the Tribunal has chosen only a notional income of
\nRs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and ultimately arrived at the
\ncompensation amount, I do not like to modify either way.  No doubt, the
\nmultiplicand if enhanced certainly the multiplier has to be reduced and if
\nworked out almost it will come to the same result.  In such a case there would
\nbe marginal difference, which does not require any interference.\n<\/p>\n
45.C.M.A.No.318 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.3,23,000\/- (Rupees three
\nlakhs and twenty three thousand only) under the following sub-heads:
\n\tFor \tloss of income\t-Rs.2,85,600\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of love and
\n\t\taffection\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor mental agony\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFor loss of consortium\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t————–
\n\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.3,23,600\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t 46. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation as well
\nas the learned counsel for the respondent No.7\/Insurance Company in unison would
\nsubmit that the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,23,600\/- (Rupees
\nthree lakhs twenty three thousand and  six hundred only) for the death of a man
\nof 33 years old, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to
\n5\/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is
\nmoderate.\n<\/p>\n
\t47. The Tribunal took into account the monthly income of the deceased at
\nRs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only), taking into consideration the deceased
\nwas a loadman and multiplier 17 was chosen taking into consideration the fact
\nthat the wife and the four children are the claimants.  In such case, I am of
\nthe considered opinion that no interference is required.  Nothing has been
\npointed that there is any glaring defect in the compensation awarded by the
\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t48. In all cases, the Tribunal awarded 9% interest p.a., hence, the
\ninterest awarded is reduced to 7.5% in commensurate with the decisions of the
\nHon’ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs.S.Rajapriya
\n& Others reported in 2005(2)TAC 297 SC and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
\nCharlie and<\/a> another reported in 2006(1)TAC 1 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
49. C.M.A.(MD)No.309 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award
\nof the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.33,000\/- (Rupees thirty three thousand only)
\nto Rs.37,000\/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand only) which shall carry interest at
\nthe rate of 7.5%.  The common Judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2007 in
\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1320 of 2007 batch cases shall form part of this Judgment relating
\nto the apportionment of negligence and the liability to pay compensation.  No
\ncosts. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
50. C.M.A.No.310 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award
\nof the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,23,600\/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty three
\nthousand and six hundred only) to Rs.3,25,600\/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty five
\nthousand and six hundred only) which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%.
\nProportionately there will be variation in the allotments in favour of each of
\nthe claimants depending upon the variation in the total compensation awarded
\nherein. The common Judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2007 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1320
\nof 2007 batch cases shall form part of this Judgment relating to the
\napportionment of negligence and the liability to pay compensation.  No costs.
\nConsequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
51. C.M.A.No.312 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is party allowed and the
\naward of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.2,75,000\/- (Rupees two lakhs and
\nseventy five thousand only) to Rs.2,43,400\/- (Rupees two lakhs forty three
\nthousand and four hundred only) which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%.
\nProportionately there will be variation in the allotments in favour of each of
\nthe claimants depending upon the variation in the total compensation awarded
\nherein. The common Judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2007 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1320
\nof 2007 batch cases shall form part of this Judgment relating to the
\napportionment of negligence and the liability to pay compensation.  No costs.
\nConsequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed.\n<\/p>\n
52.C.M.A.No.315 of 2004:.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award
\nof the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,20,000\/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty
\nthousand only) to Rs.1,80,000\/- (Rupees one lakh and eighty thousand only) which
\nshall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%.  Proportionately there will be
\nvariation in the allotments in favour of each of the claimants depending upon
\nthe variation in the total compensation awarded herein. The common Judgment of
\nthis Court dated 20.12.2007 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1320 of 2007 batch cases shall form
\npart of this Judgment relating to the apportionment of negligence and the
\nliability to pay compensation.  No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are
\nalso dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
53.C.M.A.No.317 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tI, therefore do not find any merit in this Appeal and accordingly it is
\ndismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The common Judgment of this
\nCourt dated 20.12.2007 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1320 of 2007 batch cases shall form part
\nof this Judgment relating to the apportionment of negligence and the liability
\nto pay compensation.  No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
54.C.M.A.No.318 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\tI, therefore do not find any merit in this Appeal and accordingly it is
\ndismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The common Judgment of this
\nCourt dated 20.12.2007 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1320 of 2007 batch cases shall form part
\nof this Judgment relating to the apportionment of negligence and the liability
\nto pay compensation.  No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t55. The Insurance Company is expected to calculate the total awarded
\ncompensation relating to higher twelve awards in these six cases and
\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1320 of 2007 batch cases and divide the total amount
\nproportionately among the claimants\/awardees in respect of all awards
\naccordingly deposit those amounts in the respective Tribunals.  Regarding the
\nremaining amounts the claimants\/awardees have to proceed against the owner of
\nthe vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
\t56. I also make it clear that the Insurance Company is liable only to the
\nextent of 70% even in respect of paying such higher twelve awards.  The
\nGovernment Transport Corporation is concerned to the extent of 30% of the awards
\nin all matters, it has to bear its liability and accordingly deposit the
\namounts.\n<\/p>\n
smn
\nTo
\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-\n<\/p>\n
the Fast Track Court No.I,
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/01\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A(MD)Nos.309 of 2004 C.M.A(MD)Nos. 310, 312, 315, 317 of 2004 C.M.A(MD)Nos. 318 of 2004 C.M.A(MD)No.309 of 2007 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd., Madurai Division I, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-10T17:38:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T17:38:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3793,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T17:38:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-10T17:38:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T17:38:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008"},"wordCount":3793,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008","name":"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T17:38:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-m-mahendran-on-5-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs M.Mahendran on 5 January, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86968","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86968"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86968\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86968"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86968"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86968"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}