Dismissed

The Managing Director v. N Sathishkumar

Madras HC18 Sept 2013CMA/1728/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Corporation's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court upheld the finding of negligence, liability, and the quantum of Rs.3,78,000 compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased motorcyclist.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the award of Rs.3,78,000 with interest was confirmed and directed to be executed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.09.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1728 of 2006

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Division, Villupuram. .. Appellant

¶7

.. Appellant
vs

¶8

A.S.Nadarajan (died) N.Usharani (died) 1.N.Sathishkumar 2.N.Sasikala .. Respondents

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Athur.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman For Respondents: Mr.M.Selvam (for R1 & R2) for Mr.Murthy JUDGMENT

¶11

The claimant stated that on 30.01.1991, at about 7.15 p.m., when he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TNJ-974, along with one Sivakumar, as pillion rider, on the Aathur Main Road, the respondent's Transport Corporation Bus, bearing Registration No.TN-31-N-0160, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a negligent manner, dashed against the motorcyclist and as a result, the rider and pillion rider sustained injuries. Hence, the 1^st petitioner has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1413 of 1992 and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶12

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

¶13

2.The Transport Corporation Bus filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent denied that the bus had been driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. Actually,the rider of the motorcycle had ridden it in a negligent manner and dashed it against the bus. Further, the respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the claimant.

¶14

3.Initially, the injured namely A.S.Natarajan had filed the claim petition and claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. While the claim petition was pending, the claimant had expired due to injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, the legal heirs of the original claimant have filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.194 of 1999 to bring them as L.R.'s on record. The same was allowed. Subsequently, the 2nd claimant, i.e. the wife of the original claimant had also expired. The 3rd and 4th respondents are the son and daughter of the original claimant proceeding with the claim, after filing enhancement petition. As such, the 3rd and 4^th claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

¶15

4.On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

¶16

5.On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked namely F.I.R.; Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Rough sketch; Charge sheet; Medical records; Medical bills;Driving Licence; Death Certificate of original claimant, Legal heir certificate; and Death Certificate of 2nd claimant. On the side of the respondent, no oral evidence and no documentary evidence was let in.

¶17

6.PW1 had adduced evidence that on 30.01.1991 at about 7.15 p.m., when his father Natarajan was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TNJ-974, along with his brother as a pillion rider, on the Aathur Main Road, he had seen a palm tree lying across the ground. Hence, the rider of the motorcycle had turned the vehicle towards left side and at that point of time, the respondent's bus, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a reckless manner had dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both the rider and pillion rider were thrown out. PW1 further stated that his father had sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, right wrist, right hand joint and right chest. His father underwent treatment under one Dr.Palaniappan upto 07.02.1991. Thereafter, he had been admitted at Vedanayagam Private Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein he took treatment,

¶18

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

¶19

as an inpatient from 08.02.1991 to 19.03.1991, wherein a surgical operation was conducted. Further, his father's right chest bone was fractured and his shoulder, collarbone and right hand bone had also been fractured. Subsequently, his father developed severe pain on his chest and he was immediately admitted in the hospital, but in spite of treatment, he had expired. PW1 further stated that his father was involved in agricultural operation as an agriculturalist and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. While the claim petition was pending, his father and mother had expired. He deposed that the 4^th claimant is his sister.

¶20

7.PW2, the pillion rider of the motorcycle had adduced evidence on the same line of PW1 regarding mode of accident.

¶21

8.After recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinising the exhibits marked by him, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel submits that the accident took place on 30.01.1991 in which the 1st claimant had sustained injuries and he had expired on 15.10.1995. As such, there is no nexus to show that the 1st claimant had expired due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Further, the claimants are entitled to get medical expenses alone. The learned counsel further submitted that actually the rider of the motorcycle had ridden it in a negligent manner, without noticing the palm tree which had tiller across the road and had taken a diversion, without noticing the bus and dashed against the bus and as such the accident had been caused only by the rider of the motorcycle. Further, the Tribunal had granted compensation in the absence of relevant records, namely Doctor's evidence, Postmortem report, etc. Therefore, there is a lacuna in the impugned award. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award passed by the trial Court.

¶22

9.The highly competent counsel for the claimants argued that the 1st claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries on his chest, right hand and right thigh. Further, he underwent treatment at various hospitals namely Dr.Palaniappan and then under Seethalakshmi Hospital and Vedanayagam Hospital besides undergoing treatment as outpatient. During medical treatment, two surgical operations were conducted on right leg joint and a steel plate was fixed in the operated area and his right leg had been shortened by 3 cms. Further, the 1st claimant had also sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his chest, wherein a surgical operation was conducted. Therefore, the 1^st claimant had expired in spite of getting good medical treatment, due to injuries. From the date of accident, till his death, he was under the care and custody of his family members and he has been given physical assistance continuously as his physical condition had deteriorated and finally he had expired due to injuries sustained. Now, the 3rd and 4th claimants, who are the children of the deceased, are in a deserted

¶23

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

¶24

condition who have lost both their father and mother. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal since there is no lapse in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

¶25

10.On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel 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. The learned Tribunal had decided the negligence and liability on the basis of F.I.R., Rough sketch and Charge sheet, which is appropriate. This Court is of the further view that the 1st claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries particularly on his left chest, as per medical evidence and that it has led to his death. Therefore, the Tribunal had treated the case as a fatal case due to injuries sustained by the 1st claimant, which is also appropriate. As such, the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate as it had been awarded on the basis of age, income and occupation of the deceased. As such, this Court does not find enough force in the appeal to allow it. Therefore, the impugned order is found fit enough to be executable.

¶26

11.This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. Now, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.342 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Athur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶27

12.In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 1997, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Athur, dated 28.10.2005, is confirmed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Asst. Registrar[cs.v] Dt/-05/02/2014 .

¶29

Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Athur.

¶34

C.M.A.No.1728 of 2006

¶35

jrg[co] gp/10.2.

¶36

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

The Managing Director v. N Sathishkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. N Sathishkumar

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

K.Shanmugam Vs Jayakumar

Sidhaiyan Vs v.Amudha

Maadhaven Vs v.Amudha

The New India Assurance Vs M.Pandian @ Pologa Pandian

The National Insu. Co. ,;Td Vs Bjayabal

The United India Insurance Vs C.Sakthivel