Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Minor Kamalraj

Madras HC19 Apr 2013CMA/1603/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by the Transport Corporation against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award granting Rs. 60,000 compensation for injuries sustained by a minor in a road accident. The Court found the Tribunal's conclusions on negligence, liability, and quantum reasonable and confirmed the award.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding Rs. 60,000 compensation are confirmed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.04.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1603 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram. ...Appellant/Respondent Vs.

¶7

Minor Kamalraj represented by his next friend and father Harikrishnan Maaligampattu Colony, Panruti Taluk. ...Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 13.04.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.208 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panrutti.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.V.Kasiviswanathan J U D G M E N T

¶10

The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.208 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panrutti.

¶11

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶12

The minor petitioner Kamalraj, rep by his father, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.208 of 2002, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 17.01.2000, at about 3 p.m., when the petitioner was working on the Maligampattu-Panrutti Main Road near Maligampattu Colony, from west to east, the State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-0065 coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner and the wheel of the bus ran over the petitioner's right foreleg. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was admitted at Cuddalore Government Hospital initially and subsequently received treatment at JIPMER Hospital. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondent / https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TNSTC Limited, Villupuram.

¶13

The respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the petitioner, who had jumped down from the tyre cart attached to a tractor, while it was moving and sustained injuries. It was submitted that the respondent's bus was not involved in the accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

¶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) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? If so, who is liable to pay compensation?"

¶17

On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of accident register, Ex.P3-copy of case summary and discharge summary issued to petitioner by JIPMER Hospital, Pondichery, Ex.P4-copy of Moto Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P5disability certificate, Ex.P6-X-rays. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents.

¶18

P.W.1, the father of the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P6. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, observed that the F.I.R. had been registered against the driver of the respondent's bus. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure in the bus. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus.

¶19

P.W.2, Dr.Sivasubramaniam had adduced evidence that due to the accident, the strength of the claimant's right knee joint and ankle bone had been reduced and that a thick scar extending from the right leg knee joint to the ankle joint is visible and that he experiences pain on touching this area. He deposed that the movements of his right leg joint had been reduced by 30^o and that the skin in this area had lost its strength and due to this, he experiences difficulty while sitting and certified that the claimant had sustained 45% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P5.

¶20

The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for disability; Rs.10,000/for medical expenses and nutrition; Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the injured was travelling ina tyre cart attached with the tractor and he had jumped from the fast running vehicle and sustained injuries and as such, the accident occurred only due to his recklessness. It wa contended that the contributory negligence has to be fixed on the side of the injured. It was contended that the award passed under the head of disability and pain and suffering is excessive. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses as no material evidence had been produced to prove the same. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶24

On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by Mr.V.Kasiviswanathan, the learned counsel for the appellant 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. Further, as per medical evidence, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and he had undergone medical treatment at JIPMER Hospital and at a private hospital. The medical practitioner had certified that the claimant had sustained 45% disability. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is found to be reasonable and the same is confirmed.

¶25

This Court directs the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest, as per Tribunal's findings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after subtracting initial deposits made by them. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the injured claimant, viz., Kamalraj to withdraw the entire compensation amount with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.208 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panrutti, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order, on production of proof for attaining the age of a major.

¶26

In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.208 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panrutti, dated 13.04.2007, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated: 16.04.2014

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

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

¶31

Note : The Registry is directed to send a copy of

¶32

this order to the claimant's address

¶33

by RPAD on Court costs.

¶34

¶35

1.The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panrutti.

¶36

2.Minor Kamalraj rep. by his next friend and father Harikrishnan, Maaligampattu Colony Panruti Taluk. [ By RPAD]

¶37

C.M.A.No.1603 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 RSK(CO) JJM (16.04.2014)

¶38

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

The Managing Director v. Minor Kamalraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Minor Kamalraj

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

National Insurance Vs Thoppu Thimmiah

M/S United India Insurance Co. Vs Minor M.Jothi

National Insurance Vs Palanivel

B.Devaki Vs Punniamurthy

The National Insurance Vs P. Jothi

United India Insurance Company Vs M.Krishnan,S/O.Muni Gounder