Partly allowed

Thambidurai v. Tamil Nadu State

Madras HC16 Jul 2013CMA/1764/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor accident claim involving a minor. The Court found the initial compensation insufficient and granted an additional sum of Rs. 45,000/- considering the 25% disability and age of the claimant.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 45,000/- awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum to be deposited by the respondent.

Thambidurai Vs Tamil Nadu State — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

C.M.A.No.1764 of 2007

¶6

Thambidurai ...Appellant

¶7

Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), Divisional Office, Salem-7. ...Respondents

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the fair order and the award dated 10.08.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Salem.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

The petitioner / appellant has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1764 of 2007, against the fair order and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Salem.

¶12

2.The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶13

The minor petitioner represented by his father has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 1995, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 10.10.1994, at about 1.45 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-05-E-9468, ridden by one P.Muthusamy, from Singipuram to Somampatti and when the vehicle was near Idukadu at Singipuram, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0058, coming in the opposite direction and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter. As a result, both the rider and the petitioner were thrown out of the vehicle and sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of

¶14

bone in his right leg. He was admitted at Salem Sri Gokulam Hospital and a surgery was conducted on his right leg and metal plate was implanted in the operated area. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 12 years and was studying in 6^th standard. Due to the disability sustained by him, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem.

¶15

3.The respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the Scooter involved in the accident. It was submitted that the driver of the bus had driven the bus in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent riding of the Scooter by its rider. It was submitted that the F.I.R. Has been registered only against the rider of the Scooter.

¶16

4.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for consideration in the case namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? (2) Is the claim bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? and (4) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get?

¶17

5.In the said accident, another claim has been filed by the injured rider of the Scooter namely Muthusamy against the same respondent for the injuries sustained by him. Hence, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded and common judgment was passed.

¶18

6.On the petitioner's side, three witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P19 namely Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R.; Exs.P2 & P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's reports; Ex.P4-Copy of rough sketch; Ex.P5-Copy of final report; Ex.P6-Copy of criminal court judgment; Ex.P7-Wound certificate of PW1; Exs.P8 & P9-Medical bills pertaining to PW1; Ex.P10-Wound Certificate of petitioner; Ex.P11-Educational certificate; Ex.P12 & Ex.P13-Medical bills issued to petitioner at Gokulam Hospital; Ex. P14-Disability certificate issued to PW1; Ex.P15- X-ray pertaining to PW1; Ex.P16-Disability certificate of petitioner; Ex.P17-X-ray; Ex.P18-Driving licence of PW1 and Ex.P19-Copy of I.D. Card issued by Income Tax Department. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

¶19

7.PW1 Muthusamy, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995 had adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus. RW1, the driver of the respondent's bus had adduced evidence that on seeing the Scooter coming in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, he had stopped the bus, but in spite of it, the rider of the Scooter had dashed it against the bus.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5 observed that the police, after investigation had filed the final report against the driver of the respondent's bus. On scrutiny of Ex.P6, it is seen that the

¶21

driver of the bus had been found guilty by the criminal court and that he had been imposed a fine. 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 and hence held that the claim is not bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the Scooter.

¶22

9.PW2, the father of the petitioner had adduced evidence that the petitioner had sustained fracture of bone below his right knee and that he received treatment, as an inpatient at Gokulam Hospital for one week and that even after treatment, he experiences pain while walking long distances and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P10. PW3, Doctor had adduced evidence that the petitioner had sustained fracture of tibia bone and that the fractured bone had malunited and that it has been bent 10° inwards. He deposed that the length of the petitioner's right leg had been reduced by ½ (half) inch and that he would not be able to walk fast or run and also would experience difficulty in climbing stairs. He certified that the disability sustained by the petitioner was 25% and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exhibits P16 and P17.

¶23

10.The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P10, observed that no mention has been made to show that the petitioner received treatment as an inpatient at Gokulam Hospital. The Tribunal further observed that no medical authorities had been examined to prove the nature and period of treatment and medical expenses incurred as per Exs.P12 and P13 and hence was not inclined to accept the medical bills. Further, the Tribunal, on observing that PW3 Doctor had stated about a lot of disability sustained by the petitioner which was not stated by PW2 in his evidence was not inclined to accept the evidence of PW3 regarding disability. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner had sustained fracture of bone awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses and pain and suffering. The Tribunal directed the respondent to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of its order.

¶24

11.Not being satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence adduced on the part of the claimant in the form of Exs.P10, P12 and P13 coupled with the oral evidence of the Doctor, who was examined as PW3. It was contended that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the revision of Doctor, who was examined as PW3 and grossly erred in not awarding compensation claimed by the claimant under the various heads. Hence, it was prayed for grant of additional compensation of Rs.75,000/-.

¶25

12.The highly competent counsel Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi submits that the said accident had occurred due to a collision of two vehicles had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as such the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties. Further, the Tribunal had granted an adequate compensation to the claimant.

¶26

13.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 and liability. However, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side, since the claimant had sustained 25% disability and he is aged about 12 years. It is seen for medical evidence that his right leg had been shortened by ½“ (half an inch). Hence, this Court is inclined to grant additional compensation as follows:-

¶27

Rs.25,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.5,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort since the claimant's right leg had been shortened by ½ (half) inch as per evidence. In total, this Court awards Rs.70,000/as compensation. After deducting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/-, this Court awards Rs.45,000/- as additional compensation, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case as the claimant's age was only 12 years. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation.

¶28

14.This Court directs the respondent to deposit the said compensation amount, with interest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by way of depositing the award before the trial Court.

¶29

15.After such a deposit having been made, the injured claimant is at liberty to withdraw the said amount with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.313 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Salem, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶30

16.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the fair order and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 1995, dated 10.08.1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Salem, is modified. No costs.

Sd/Asst. Registrar.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar.

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

¶35

¶36

¶37

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Salem.

¶38

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶39

1 CC to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate SR No. 35983
1 CC to Mr.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate SR No.36044
C.M.A.No.1764 of 2007
TAD [CO]
PSI 19/08/2014

¶40

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

Thambidurai v. Tamil Nadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thambidurai v. Tamil Nadu State

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

Tejaram Vs Baby

Tamil Nadu State Vs Pc Palaisamy

The Managing Director Vs N.Balammal

National Instt.of Technology Vs the Presiding Officer

V. Sundararaj Vs S. Murugavel

The Managing Director Vs Sudha