Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Sudha

Madras HC16 Jul 2013CMA/433/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by the respondent Transport Corporation challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court upheld liability but restructured the compensation quantum on disability grounds, confirming the original award with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded Rs.42,400 (restructured) with interest at 7.5% per annum; Appeal dismissed; Award confirmed.

The Managing Director Vs Sudha — 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.433 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

The Managing Director, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division. ..Appellant/ Respondent Vs Sudha ..Respondent/ Petitioner

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.1056 of 2006 dated 07.09.2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai.

¶8

For Appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi For Respondent : Mr.S.Sounthar

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.433 of 2008, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1056 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1056 of 2006, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 28.07.2004, while the petitioner was riding her motorcycle, along with her son as pillion rider, on the Vandavasi to Kancheepuram road, near Vengundram junction road, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1548, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner and her son sustained injuries and her son died subsequently. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,

¶13

Villupuram Division.

¶14

3.The respondent, in his counter has submitted that the driver of the bus had driven the bus in a careful and cautious manner and the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner, who had crossed the main road and dashed her vehicle against the left rear side steps of the bus. It was submitted that the petitioner was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the TVS 50. It was submitted that the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence to drive the TVS 50 at the time of accident and hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the petitioner had filed another M.C.O.P before the Cheyyar Court for Rs.5,00,000/- and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

¶15

4.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed an issue namely Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, against whom and to what amount? On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6 namely Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Copy of Accident Register; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspection Reports (2); Ex.P4-Copy of Charge sheet; Ex.P5-Permanent Disability Certificate of the petitioner and Ex.P6-X-ray report of the petitioner. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

¶16

5.PW1 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P4. RW1, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the petitioner, who had come from a subroad and suddenly tried to cross the main road and consequently dashed her vehicle against the rear side steps of the bus. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P4, observed that the F.I.R. had been registered against the driver of the bus and that the police, after investigation have filed the charge sheet against him. The Tribunal further observed that the other claim filed by the petitioner for compensation for the death of her son, the competent Tribunal, the award has been passed against the respondent. The Tribunal, on opining that the accident could have been awarded if the bus driver had sounded horn while nearing a cross road and 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 the respondent is liable to pay compensation

¶17

6.On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained fracture of ulna alone and that the petitioner was only treated at Vandavasi Hospital. The Tribunal on observing that PW2, Doctor, who had certified that the petitioner had sustained 30% disability had not treated the petitioner, held that the disability https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessed was excessive and hence held that the disability sustained by the petitioner could only be taken as 10%. As no documentary

¶18

evidence had marked to prove the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the petitioner could only be taken as Rs.18,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, on observing that the petitioner was aged 26 years, as per wound certificate and on adopting a multiplier of 18, awarded a sum of Rs.32,400/(18,000X18X10/100) for loss of income due to disability; Rs.5,000/was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for medical expenses and attender charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.42,400/- 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 two months from the date of its order.

¶19

7.Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Division has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence of the appellant driver, who drove the bus carefully and cautiously and failed to consider that the claimant was driving the motorcycle rashly. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle had not been impleaded. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that no medical bills were marked and as such the award of Rs.32,400/- for disability of 10% by adopting multiplier method is not sustainable. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶20

8.The very competent counsel Mr.S.Sounthar submits that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus and hence the F.I.R. had been registered against him. Further, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries. Considering the nature of injuries and medical treatment, the compensation awarded is not on the higher side.

¶21

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 quantum of compensation. However, the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted a sum of Rs.32,400/- for disability which is not appropriate in the instant case. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation as follows:-

¶22

Rs.20,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.2,000/- towards transport; Rs.2,000/- for nutrition; Rs.2,400/- towards attender charges; Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period. As such the quantum of compensation awarded is confirmed. It is seen from the Court records, that the entire compensation has been deposited.

¶23

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

¶24

10.Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with added interest, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1056 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶25

11.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1056 of 2006, dated 07.09.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar(CO)
Dt.24/06/14
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
vs
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.B. Vijayalakshmi ,Advocate SR.No.36043
+1cc to Mr.S. Sounthar , Advocate SR.No.36246
NG(CO)
ka 03/07
C.M.A.No.433 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
16.07.2013

¶27

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

The Managing Director v. Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sudha

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

Thambidurai Vs Tamil Nadu State