Dismissed

The Managing Director v. v.Nagaraj

Madras HC10 Jul 2013CMA/510/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal against a Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court found no error in liability but restructured the compensation. The court confirmed the total quantum while reclassifying its heads and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; compensation quantum confirmed but restructured into specific heads; Tribunal order upheld.

The Managing Director Vs v.Nagaraj — Medical Negligence | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.510 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶6

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport

¶7

Corporation, Salem Main Road, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. ... Appellant/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.143 of 2000, dated 05.09.2006, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Sub Court at Hosur.

¶10

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶11

On 13.10.1999, at about 11.30 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in the State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N-0865, on the Dharmapuri Main Road, the driver of the bus drove it in a negligent manner and dashed it against a tanker lorry. As a result, the claimant had sustained injuries. Hence, he has filed the claim against the Transport Corporation.

¶12

statement and resisted the claim. It was submitted that the accident was not committed by the driver of the bus, but it was caused only due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry.

¶13

On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues, viz.,

¶14

"(i) Whether the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus?

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?"

¶17

On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., accident register, medical records, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, salary certificate, medical bills, school certificate, disability certificate, X-rays. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no documents were marked.

¶18

P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 13.10.1999, at about 11.30 a.m., when he was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N-0865, on the Dharmapuri Main Road, the driver of the bus had attempted to overtake the ongoing tanker lorry and consequently dashed it against the lorry. He further stated that he had sustained bone fracture injuries in both his legs, right hand, right hip and right side of hand and also sustained injuries on his upper jaw due to which, two of his teeth had fallen down and some other teeth had been loosened.

¶19

P.W.2, doctor had spoken on the same lines of P.W.1 and had certified that the claimant had sustained 60% disability. P.W.3 had adduced evidence that the claimant had lost two of his teeth on his upper jaw.

¶20

R.W.1 had adduced evidence that when the tanker lorry which was proceeding at a distance of 20 feet ahead of the bus, the driver of the bus had given indication of his intent to overtake the lorry and at that time, the lorry, all of a sudden had been turned to the right, resulting in the accident.

¶21

On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶22

Aggrieved by the said award, the State Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal.

¶23

The highly competent counsel, Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi submits that the driver of the lorry had turned his vehicle to the right side and had dashed it against the bus and as such, the owner and insurer of the lorry are necessary parties. Further, in the said accident, two vehicles have been involved and therefore, the contributory negligence has to be attributed. The doctors have assessed the disability at 60%, which is on the higher side since the claimant had sustained simple injuries.

¶24

On considering the facts and position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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 mode of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not proper and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hence, this Court restructures the compensation as follows:-

¶25

Rs.90,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.15,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R has been registered against the driver of the bus and the claimant had sustained disability of 60% due to multiple bone fracture injuries, as per medical evidence. Hence, this Court, confirms the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶26

On 05.03.2009, this Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest, thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.143 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Sub Court at Hosur, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶27

In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.143 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Sub Court at Hosur, dated 05.09.2006, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V) dt. 28.4.14

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub. Assistant Registrar

¶31

r n s To

¶32

The Sub Court, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur.

¶33

1 cc to Mr.B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate Sr.34933

¶34

C.M.A.No.510 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶35

CTK(CO) EU 29.4.14

¶36

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

¶37

10.07.2013

¶38

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

The Managing Director v. v.Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. v.Nagaraj

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

D.Muralidharan Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Muralidharan Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.National Insurance Company Vs Rajan,S/O.Bhaskaran Nair

B.Lalbhadur Vs the Managing Director

Tmt.Mayilathal Vs v.Mohan Babu

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Presiding Officer