E-Paper
Madras HC upholds relief for kin of driver killed in 1992 bus fire
Private bus driver, Nainar, was operating between Aruppukkottai and Rajapalayam in Virudhunagar district (the hub of the firecracker industry) in May 1992 when he and the bus conductor permitted some passengers to carry unlicensed explosives in the vehicle.
Nearly three decades after the death of a bus driver in a fire, the Madurai bench of Madras high court has provided relief to the family of the deceased by confirming the compensation awarded previously.
Private bus driver, Nainar, was operating between Aruppukkottai and Rajapalayam in Virudhunagar district (the hub of the firecracker industry) in May 1992 when he and the bus conductor permitted some passengers to carry unlicensed explosives in the vehicle. Soon after, the bus caught fire and more than 30 people died, including the driver. In 2004, his legal heirs claimed a compensation of ₹3 lakh.
However, the insurance company challenged the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, a sub court in Srivilliputtur, in 2010. The high court recalled that during the trial, the tribunal analysed all evidence and held that the accident occurred due to an ‘Act of God’, and directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant. The orders were passed by Justice V Bharathidasan of the high court on October 8 and the copy of the judgment was made available this week.
The insurance company, in its present appeal, contested the claim petition stating the accident took place due to the negligent act of both the driver and conductor for permitting the passengers to carry unlicensed explosives, against the policy conditions. Besides, the insurance company also raised a technical issue pointing that the claimants could not seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the claim could only be made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased driver at ₹1,350 per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, calculated his annual income to ₹10,800. By applying multiplier ‘11’, the tribunal awarded ₹118,800 as loss of income, the high court noted. In addition, the tribunal had awarded ₹10,000 towards loss of love and affection, ₹3,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹1,000 towards transport expenses. The total compensation came down to ₹132,800 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
While the counsel for the insurance company, D Sivaraman, contended that the accident had happened only due to the negligent act of the driver, the counsel of the claimants, D Venkatesh, said it wasn’t a driver’s job to check what passengers carry into the bus.
After listening to arguments from both sides, the high court said, “Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and fair compensation, this court inclined to confirm the award amount of ₹132,800.”
Further, the court agreed that the claim can be made only under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. “However, considering the fact that the claim was made in the year 2004, and the tribunal awarded only a meagre compensation of ₹132,800, and also considering the fact that all the other claims were processed and the insurance company already paid the compensation to other claimants, at this distant point of time, the claimants need not be driven to file a fresh claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In such circumstances, this court converts the claim as one made under Workmen’s Compensation Act,” the court said in its orders.
