Dismissed

The Managing Director v. P.Nagaraj

Madras HC16 Jul 2014CMA/1263/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an appeal against an award of compensation by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained by a passenger in a rashly driven bus. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding of employer liability and the quantum of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with interest and cost.

The Managing Director Vs P.Nagaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 16.07.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

The Managing Director

¶6

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Coimbatore Division II) Erode .. Appellant Vs. 1.P.Nagaraj 2.K.A.Moorthy .. Respondents (R2-Given Up)

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.514 of 2009 dated 23.09.2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Principal Sub-Judge, Erode.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.R.Nirmala for R1 R2 Given up

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

The present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation questioning the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Principal Sub-Judge, Erode dated 23.09.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.514 of 2009.

¶11

It is the case of the first respondent that on 29.11.2006 at about 21.30 hours while he was traveling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN 33 N 1034 belonging to the appellant Corporation, the driver of the said bus in the process of giving way to another bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

¶12

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

¶13

the bridge and thus caused the accident, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and two toes were amputated.

¶14

The respondent has filed a counter stating that at the time of accident the victim was traveling as a foot board passenger and hence, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶15

Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined himself as PW1 besides examining one Dr.Periyasamy as PW2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, the driver and the conductor were examined as Rws 1 and 2 and no documents were marked.

¶16

The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence adduced on either side, came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and by coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.81,206/- as compensation and directed the appellant Transport Corporation to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶18

It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that inspite of the fact that convincing evidence has been adduced on the side of the appellant Transport corporation through its driver and conductor that at the time of accident the victim was traveling on the foot board, the Tribunal fixed the entire liability on the appellant Transport Corporation. Hence, the said finding is liable to be set side.

¶19

On perusal of the records, I find that since the date of occurrence happens to be a auspicious day, there was heavy crowd in the bus to attend the marriages. Even assuming for a moment that the victim was standing on the foot board because of the crowd in the bus, the Conductor ought to have warned him either to come inside the bus or to get down from the bus and without doing so, he allowed the victim to travel on the foot board and the bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the conductor has warned the victim, not to travel on the foot board and hence now they cannot blame the victim and seek the indulgence of the Court to fix the contributory negligence on the part of the victim also. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding and hence, I am not inclined to fix the contributory negligence on the victim.

¶20

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

¶21

So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the left leg which resulted in amputation of two toes and the petitioner has made a claim for Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation whereas the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.81,206/-. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the victim, the said amount cannot be said to be on the higher side and hence I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶22

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on due application. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gpa To The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Principal Sub-Judge, Erode.

¶23

+1 cc to Mr.I.C.Vasudevan Advocate sr.31312 +1 cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi Advocate sr.31160

¶24

C.M.A.No.1263 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 aa13/08/2014

¶25

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

The Managing Director v. P.Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. P.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

Suba @ Kalaivani Vs J.Nirmal Babu

The Manager, Vs Mrs.Selvi

N.Harikrishnan Vs Senthilkumar

Venkatachalachari Vs Gangamma

The Branch Manager Vs M.Ganapathysundaram

M.Singamuthu Vs Palaniselvam