Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Amaravathi

Madras HC11 Jul 2013CMA/2840/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a road accident where a passenger fell while alighting. The Court restructured the compensation calculation due to an improper multiplier method but dismissed the appeal, confirming the liability and the revised quantum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation restructured into specific heads totaling the awarded amount; appeal dismissed; Tribunal order confirmed.

The Managing Director Vs Amaravathi — 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.2840 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶6

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Salem Ltd., Bharathipuram,

¶7

Salem Main Road,

¶8

Dharmapuri. ..Appellant/ Respondent vs Amaravathi ..Respondent/ Petitioner

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.02.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1261 of 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.M.Sriram JUDGMENT

¶11

On 13.02.2004, at about 02.30 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in the State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N-1199, on the Krishnagiri main road and while the bus was stopped at Londonpet bus stand for alighting the passengers and when the claimant was in the process of alighting from the bus, the driver of the bus started the bus suddenly due to which she had fallen on the floor and sustained injuries. Hence, the claim had been levelled against the Transport Corporation.

¶12

2.The State Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim. It was submitted that the driver of the bus had not committed the said accident in a negligent manner. Actually, the driver was in the process of slowly halting the bus near the bus stand, but the claimant had attempted to alight from the moving bus and invited the accident by her own negligence. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, disability and medical treatment was not admitted.

¶13

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

¶14

3.On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: (1)Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus?; (2)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? (3) To what other relief is the claimant entitled to get?. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked namely: F.I.R; Wound certificate; CT scan; Disability certificate. On the side of the respondent, the Conductor was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked.

¶15

4.PW.1, had adduced evidence that on 13.02.2004, at about 02.30 p.m., she was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N1199, on the Krishnagiri main road. At that point of time, the driver of the bus had stopped the bus at Londonpet bus stand for alighting the passengers and while she was in the process of alighting the bus, the driver had started the bus suddenly, due to which she had fallen down and sustained injuries. She further stated that she had sustained injuries on her right hand, nose and upper jaw and she had undergone treatment at two different hospitals.

¶16

5.PW.2, Doctor had spoken on the same line of PW.1 and certified that the claimant had sustained 25% disability and a portion of her brain had been affected.

¶17

6.On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.70,200/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the State Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. The very competent counsel Mr.S.S.Swaminathan submits that the claimant had tried to alight from the running bus and has invited the accident. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 25% which is on the higher side. Besides, the Tribunal, had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation, which is not appropriate.

¶18

7.The highly competent counsel Mr.Sriram submits that the F.I.R. had been registered against the driver of the bus since he had committed the accident in a negligent manner by starting the bus while the claimant was trying to alight the bus. Further, the claimant had sustained head injuries and a portion of her brain had been affected. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 25%. Therefore, the liability, negligence and quantum of compensation had been decided by the Tribunal in an appropriate manner.

¶19

8.On considering the facts and 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

¶20

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

¶21

negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. However, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not proper and as such this Court restructures compensation as follows:-

¶22

Rs.37,500/- is awarded for disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.5,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,700/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period. As well as the quantum of compensation awarded is confirmed. The rate of interest is unaltered. This Court already directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount. Subsequently, the claimant was permitted to withdraw a portion of deposited amount.

¶23

9.Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the balance compensation amount, with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1261 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶24

10.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the fair and decreetal order, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1261 of 2006, dated 11.02.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) Dated: 30.04.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.M. Sriram, Advocate, Sr. 34996 1 cc to Mr.S.S. Swaminathan, Advocate, sr. 35021 C.M.A.No.2840 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 SJ (CO) kk 30/4

¶25

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

The Managing Director v. Amaravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Amaravathi

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

Dr.E.Karthikeyan Vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control

Vs

The Managing Director Vs S.Chinnamuthu