Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Senniappan

Madras HC12 Jul 2013CMA/1371/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1.54 lakhs to a cyclist for injuries caused by a TNSTC bus. The bus driver appealed, arguing contributory negligence by the cyclist and excessive medical expenses. The High Court found no discrepancy in the Tribunal's findings regarding liability and compensation quantum, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award dated 05.07.2004 was confirmed.

The Managing Director Vs Senniappan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1371 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Senniappan 2.Rajendran ... Respondents/Petitioiner & (r2 Drives-givenup) 1st Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.1630 of 2000 (Sub Court) M.C.O.P.No.1067 of 2003 (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharampuram, Erode District, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharapuram Additional District and Sessions Judge,Erode and prayed to set-aside the same.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy for R-1 R-2 (Given up) - - - J U D G M E N T

¶9

The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1630 of 2000 (Sub Court) M.C.O.P.No.1067 of 2003 (Fast Track Court No.III), on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, Erode District.

¶10

The petitioner has filed the claim, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 19.04.2000, at about 9 a.m., when the petitioner was riding his cycle towards east on the Kangeyam-Kovai Main Road, near Police

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Station roundana, the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-38N-0202, coming behind the petitioner and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed behind the bicycle and caused the accident. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his head, left arm, left foreleg and left thigh and was admitted at Government Hospital, Kangeyam initially and subsequently received treatment at K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein two surgical operations were carried out and he received treatment there for one month. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 45 years and was working as an agriculturist and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Due to disability sustained in the accident, he is not able to do his work. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and the TNSTCS Limited, Coimbatore.

¶13

The second respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred, disability and manner of accident. It was submitted that the driver of the bus drove it in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner, who had suddenly turned his cycle towards right, while proceeding ahead of the bus and invited the accident.

¶14

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration in the case, viz.,

¶15

"(i) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?

¶16

(ii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?"

¶17

On the petitioner's side, three witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P3-copy of accident register, Ex.P4-copy of wound certificate, Ex.P5-copy of charge sheet, Ex.P6-copy of criminal Court judgment, Ex.P7-X-rays, Ex.P8-medical bills, Exs.P9 and P10-discharge summary, Ex.P11-photo with negatives, Exs.P12 and P13-copy of share deed, Ex.P14-scan photos, Ex.P15-CT scan report, Ex.P16-case sheet, Ex.P17-medical treatment records, Ex.P18-disability certificate, Ex.P19-X-rays. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

¶18

P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the

¶19

statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P17. R.W.1, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that on the date of occurrence of accident, at about 9 a.m., when he was driving the bus near Kangeyam Police Station near the roundtana towards east, the petitioner, who was proceeding ahead in his cycle, had suddenly turned the cycle towards right, without giving any indication and

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

without seeing the bus, and that on seeing this, he had stopped the bus, but in spite of it, the petitioner had dashed his cycle against the bus.

¶22

On scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P5, it is seen that the F.I.R, has been registered against the first respondent and the police, after enquiry had filed the charge sheet against him. On scrutiny of Ex.P6, it is seen that the first respondent had been found guilty before the criminal Court. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent.

¶23

P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had been caught under the left front tyre of the bus and that he had sustained lacerated injuries on his forehead, left cheek, left thigh and also sustained injuries on his left ear, right chest and stomach. He deposed that the flesh in his second and third fingers of his right hand had been affected and that he had sustained fracture of bone in his hand and also sustained injuries in his liver. He deposed that he had taken initial treatment at Government Hospital and subsequently taken treatment at K.G.Hospital, as an inpatient for one month.

¶24

P.W.3, doctor had adduced evidence that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in his liver, he experiences difficulty during inhaling and exhaling of breath and that the fractured rib bones had also mal-united He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 40% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P16 and P17. He further deposed that due to the injuries sustained in his head, blood clots have been formed in his right head.

¶25

The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.70,000/- was awarded for medical expenses; Rs.70,000/- was awarded for disability; Rs.1,000/- was awarded for transport; Rs.2,000/- for nutrition and Rs.6,000/- was awarded for loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as compensation and directed the second respondent to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within one month from the date of its order.

¶26

Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent / TNSTC Limited, Coimbatore has preferred the present appeal.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

his appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the appellant's driver had driven it in a careful manner and that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent riding of the cycle by the claimant. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon F.I.R. which was marked through the claimant without examining the author of the document. It was contended that the Tribunal after observing that the fee of Rs.21,180/- paid towards consultation fees was high erred in awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- for medical expenses, which is not just and acceptable. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1 and ought to have fixed entire or at least contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to note that no documentary evidence, had been produced to prove the occupation and income of the claimant and as such, the award passed was highly excessive. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

The very competent counsel, Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy submits that the accident had been caused by the negligent driving by the driver of the bus and hence, a criminal case had been levelled against him. Further, the claimant had sustained 40% disability and a skin grafting surgical operation was conducted on his right hand. Besides this, the claimant had sustained rib bone injuries and he had spent a sum of Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, had passed the well considered award. As such, the said award is found to be suitable for execution against the appellant herein.

¶31

On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus for his negligent driving and the claimant had sustained 40% disability and had undergone a skin grafting surgical operation. Besides this, he had spent a sum of Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses. Hence, the award is confirmed. It is seen from the Court records that this Court had directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, with added interest thereon. Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1630 of 2000 (Sub Court) M.C.O.P.No.1067 of 2003 (Fast Track Court No.III), on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, Erode District, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶32

In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1630 of 2000 (Sub Court) M.C.O.P.No.1067 of 2003 (Fast Track Court No.III), on the

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, Erode District, dated 05.07.2004 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
Dated:13/6/2014
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Dharapuram,
Erode District.
2.The Section Officer VR Section High Court
Madras
+1 cc to Mr.V.Ramesh Advocate sr.35970
+1 cc to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy Advocate sr.35308
C.M.A.No.1371 of 2009 &
M.P.No.1 of 2009
aa13/6/2014

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Managing Director v. Senniappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Senniappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs S.Chinnamuthu

The Managing Director Vs Amaravathi

Dr.E.Karthikeyan Vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs v.Bhurasamy

Mr.K.Ashok Vs K.Puttasamy

T.Thanikachalam, Vs K.Zinda