Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu State Transport v. v.Bhurasamy

Madras HC12 Jul 2013CMA/3091/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging a compensation award, the court found no discrepancy in the tribunal's findings of negligence liability and quantum. The court held the awarded compensation appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the award and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were confirmed.

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs v.Bhurasamy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

C.M.A.No.3091 of 2009

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶8

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

¶9

rep. By its Managing Director,

¶10

Villupuram.

¶11

... Appellant/Respondent

¶12

¶13

V.Bhurasamy

¶14

... Respondent/Petitioner

¶15

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panruti and made in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2002 dated 12.12.2006 praying to set aside the same.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant/ respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.3091 of 2009, against the award and decreetal order passed in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Panruti.

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner, V.Bhurasamy has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2002, 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 27.02.2002, at about 6.00 a.m., when the petitioner was travelling along with others in the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-0602, from Sattanampattu towards Cuddalore, the driver of the bus drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and when the bus was near Pillaithotti, the driver of the bus suddenly applied brake and dashed the bus against a Tamarind tree. As a result, the petitioner and other passengers sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was admitted at Government Hospital, Cuddalore and took treatment for 10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ days and subsequently took treatment at various private hospitals, as

¶22

an outpatient. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 25 years and was doing his 2^nd year of B.Sc. Course. Due to disability sustained in the accident, he is not able to concentrate on his studies as he often gets giddiness and headache which leads to fits. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram.

¶23

3.The respondent, in his counter had denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of petitioner, period of treatment, nature of injuries and disability. It was submitted that the driver of the bus drove it in a careful and cautious manner and that on the date of occurrence of accident, when the bus was nearing Thotti Village, a girl had suddenly crossed the road without seeing the bus. The driver of the bus, in order to avoid hitting the bus against the girl had applied brake and turned the bus towards right resulting in the collision of the bus against a Tamarind tree. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

¶24

4.In the same accident, 10 other claims had been filed by the injured passengers in the bus against the same respondent claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them. Hence, a joint trial was conducted, common evidence was recorded in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2002 and common judgment was passed. On the petitioner's side, 12 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW12 and 22 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P22 namely Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P3-O.P.Chit (Bhurasamy); Ex.P4Accident Register (Bhurasamy); Ex.P5-O.P.Chit of Chellekanna, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 202; Ex.P6-Copy of Accident register (Chellakannu); Ex.P7-O.P.Chit issued to Senthilmurugan, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.128 of 2002; Ex.P8-O.P.chit issued at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry to Senthilmurugan; Ex.P9-Copy of Accident register issued to petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2002 (Rajathi); Ex.P10-O.P.Chit issued to Pattusamy, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2002; Ex.P11-Copy of Accident register (Pattusamy); Ex.P12-Copy of accident register issued to petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2002 namely Subbarajan; Ex.P13-Copy of accident register issued to Dhanavalli, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.137 of 2002; Ex.P14-Copy of accident register issued to Jayalakshmi, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.143 of 2002; Ex.P15-Copy of accident register issued to Amaldoss, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2002; Ex.P16-Copy of accident register issued to Amaldoss, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2002; Ex.P17-O.P.Chit issued to Amaldoss, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2002; Ex.P18-Copy of accident register issued to Jayaraman, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2002; Ex.P19-Disability Certificate (Bhurasamy); Ex.P20-X-rays (Bhurasamy); Ex.P21-Disability Certificate (Senthilmurugan) and Ex.P22-X-rays (Senthilmurugan). On the respondent's side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.

¶25

5.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration in the case namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the

¶26

accident caused? and (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? If so, who is liable to pay compensation?

¶27

6.PW1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. PW2 to PW11, the petitioners in the other ten claims have also adduced evidence that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus and in support of their evidence, they had marked Exhibits P1 to P22.

¶28

7.RW1, Ramakrishnan, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that on 27.02.2002, when he was driving the bus near Pillai Thotti at about 5.50 a.m., he had put on the head lights of the bus as there was a heavy dust and he was driving the bus in a careful and cautious manner and that a girl had suddenly crossed the road, without seeing the bus and that on seeing this, he had applied brake and turned the bus towards right, in order to avoid hitting against the girl and in the process had lost control of his vehicle and dashed it against a Tamarind tree on the side of the road. He deposed that neither he nor the appellant Corporation was responsible for the accident.

¶29

8.The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of PW1 to PW11 and on scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P2, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus and hence held the respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶30

9.On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained grievous injury. PW12, Dr.Venugopal had adduced evidence that due to the accident, the petitioner had sustained fracture of collar bone and also a crush injury on the right foot. He deposed that the fractured bone had malunited and due to this the movements of the petitioner's left shoulder had been reduced. He deposed that the petitioner is not able to lift heavy weights and experiences difficulty in doing his routine work and certified that the petitioner had sustained 35% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P19.

¶31

10.The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- for disability; Rs.10,000/- was awarded for medical expenses and nutrition; Rs.20,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay 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 a period of one month from the date of its order.

¶32

11.Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant

¶33

has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the appellant's driver and failed to note that no police officer or eyewitness was examined to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant Corporation. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of PW1 regarding nature of injury, period of treatment and disability. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the evidence of RW1, the driver of the appellant Corporation in respect of manner of accident. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of PW12, Doctor, who had not treated the claimant and also erred in relying upon Ex.P19-disability certificate issued by him. It was contended that the Tribunal, after having found that no documentary evidence was produced to prove the age, income and occupation of petitioner erred in granting a sum of Rs.35,000/- for loss of earning power due to disability without any basis. It was contended that the award passed was excessive and hence it was prayed to scale down the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

12.The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Kalyanaraman for the claimant submits that the accident had been caused by the driver of the bus and hence the F.I.R. has been registered against him. Further, the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 35% but the Tribunal had not granted an adequate compensation to the claimant.

¶35

13.On considering the facts and circumstances 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. This Court is of the view that the accident had been caused by the driver of the bus and hence the criminal case had been levelled against him. Further, it is seen that the claimant had sustained 25% disability as per medical evidence. It is also seen that the petitioner is aged only 25 years and as such the quantum of compensation awarded is appropriate.

¶36

14.This Court directs the appellant herein to deposit the balance compensation amount, with added interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶37

15.After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the said amount, with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Panruti, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶38

16.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decreetal order passed in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2002, dated 12.12.2006, on the file of the Motor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Panruti, is confirmed.

¶39

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vs
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Court,
Panruti.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.V.Ramesh,Advocate, SR.No.35969
C.M.A.No.3091 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
ad(co)
pmk.11.6.2014

¶41

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

The Tamil Nadu State Transport v. v.Bhurasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tamil Nadu State Transport v. v.Bhurasamy

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 S.Chinnamuthu

The Managing Director Vs Amaravathi

Dr.E.Karthikeyan Vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control

The Managing Director Vs Senniappan

Mr.K.Ashok Vs K.Puttasamy

T.Thanikachalam, Vs K.Zinda