Allowed

The Managing Director v. S.Chinnamuthu

Madras HC11 Jul 2013CMA/2358/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Transport Corporation against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award for personal injury. The Court restructured the compensation headnotes (retaining the total) and affirmed liability based on the FIR against the driver, allowing the claimant to withdraw funds if desired.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Award and Decree confirmed; Appellant directed to comply with award; Claimant permitted to withdraw amount lying in Tribunal credit.

The Managing Director Vs S.Chinnamuthu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

C.M.A.No.2358 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

The Managing Director,
TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Chennimalai Road,
Erode. ..Appellant/Respondent
vs
S.Chinnamuthu .. Respondent/Claimant

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.176 of 2003 dated 01.06.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Sankari.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.N.Anand
For Respondent: Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
JUDGMENT

¶9

The claimant was waiting for a bus, to take him to his native place, at the Karungalpalaym-Erode Town bus stop, on 24.10.2003, at about 7.30 a.m. While so, the respondent's Corporation bus, driven in a negligent manner, ran over his foot and as a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim has been filed against the Transport Corporation.

¶10

2.The respondent / Transport Corporation Bus had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submits that the driver of the bus had not committed the said accident and that the accident had been caused as the claimant had suddenly and negligently crossed the road. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, age, income and occupation of the claimant.

¶11

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

¶12

3.After careful study of the averments of both the parties, the trial Court had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-1482? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

¶13

4.On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4 namely Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2Wound Certificate; Ex.P3-X-ray; and Ex.P4-Disability. On the side of the respondent's, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.

¶14

5.PW1 had adduced evidence that on 24.10.2003, at about 7.30 a.m., when he was waiting at the Karungalpalayam bus stop in order to board a bus to go to his native place, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-1482, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, ran over his leg and as a result, he had sustained grievous injuries. PW1 further stated that he had been hospitalised at Erode Government Hospital for a period of two months, wherein S.S.G. skin surgical operation was conducted. PW2, Doctor had spoken on the same lines of PW1, regarding nature of injuries and mode of treatment and assessed the disability at 20%.

¶15

6.RW1, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that the claimant had suddenly crossed before the bus and as such the accident had been caused by negligence of the claimant.

¶16

7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.86,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. The very competent counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had suddenly crossed the road in front of the bus and as a result, he had invited the said accident and as such, in the instant case, contributory negligence has to be attributed. The Tribunal had granted Rs.60,000/- under the head of disability stating that the claimant is unable to earn for 120 months due to the accident and had granted a sum of Rs.500/- per month for loss of income due to injuries, which is not pertinent in the instant case, as the claimant had sustained simple injuries.

¶17

8.The highly competent counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries on his right sole and on his right knee and a skin grafting surgical operation was conducted during his medical treatment period, as an inpatient, at Government Hospital, Erode, wherein he underwent medical treatment for a period of two months. The claimant has been involved in agricultural operation, as a coolie and also does seasonal business in fruits. After the accident, both his avocations have been affected.

¶18

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

¶19

9.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 the quantum of compensation. However, the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal requires slight modification and as such this Court restructures the same:-

¶20

Rs.40,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.5,000/- for nutrition; Rs.5,000/- for attender charges; Rs.5,000/- for loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.6,000/- for loss of amenities and loss of comfort due to disfigurement, which is permanent in nature. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. Regarding negligence and liability, it is seen that the F.I.R. had been lodged against the driver of the bus and hence the decision of the trial Court on the above issue is found to be appropriate.

¶21

10.This Court directed the appellant to comply with the impugned award on 01.06.2006. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.176 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Sankari, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶22

11 .In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.176 of 2003, dated 01.06.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Sankari, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/Asst.Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Sankari.

¶30

Copy to:The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, Advocate Sr 35197 +1cc to Mr.N.Anand, Advocate Sr 35368

¶32

SSI(CO) km/7.10.

¶33

C.M.A.No.2358 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶34

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

The Managing Director v. S.Chinnamuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. S.Chinnamuthu

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 v.Nagaraj

B.Lalbhadur Vs the Managing Director

Tmt.Mayilathal Vs v.Mohan Babu

The Managing Director Vs Amaravathi

Dr.E.Karthikeyan Vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control

Vs