Dismissed

The Naging Director v. Kasiammal

Madras HC15 Oct 2014CMA/1505/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation due to a bus accident. The High Court adjusted the quantum by absorbing future damages into the 'grievous injuries' head and confirmed the pain and suffering award, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal award is confirmed; the appellant is permitted to withdraw the deposited compensation amount with interest.

The Naging Director Vs Kasiammal — Madras HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.10.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1505 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division II, Abdullapuram, Vellore – 9. ...Appellant/Respondent Vs Kasiammal ...Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2007 and made in MCOP No.175 of 2004 on the filee of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruvannamalai. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.B.Jawahar JUDGMENT

¶7

The Transport Corporation has come forward with the present appeal challenging the award dated 09.06.2007 and made in MCOP No.175 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruvannamalai.

¶8

It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 27.07.2003 at about 09.45 a.m., while the respondent/claimant was travelling in the bus bearing Regn.No.TN23 N 0696 belonging to the appellant/Tranasport Corporation from Chengan to his Village, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashsed against a tamarind tree. Due to the said accident, the respondent/claimant sustained injuries on her left wrist, left leg below knee, left upper arm, chest, left ear and all over the body. Hence, she made a claim as against the Transport Corporation claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

¶9

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

¶10

The Transport Corporation resisisted the insurance claim by filing counter statement contending that the accident took place due to mechanical defect, i.e. ceasure of brake lining and hence the transport corporation is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶11

In order to prove the claim, the respondent/claimant examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining Dr.Raveendran as P.W.2 and marked six documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the side of the transport corporation, no one was examined and no documents were marked.

¶12

The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-23N 0696, belonging to the Transport Corporation and thus, fixed the liability on the part of the Transport Corporation to pay the compensation amount. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has calculated the compensation on different heads and passed an award for a total sum of Rs.30,000/-. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation.

¶13

It is the main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/transport corporation that the doctor, PW2 who examined the respondent/claimant and issued the disablity certificate is only a general physician and not an ENT specialist and hence he is not the competent to issue disability certificate for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head future damages is highly excessive and the same has to be reduced.

¶14

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimanat that the respondent/claimant has sustained grievous injuries and that the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head pain & sufferings and thus prayed for confirmation of the award amount.

¶15

Though I accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation that P.W.2, doctor is not the competent person to issue disability certificate for the injuries sustained by the claimant is accepted, considering the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant, I find that the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the future damages could be adjusted and awarded under the head “grievous injuries''. The amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head pain & sufferings is confirmed.

¶16

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

¶17

In the result, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai dated 09.06.2007 made in MCOP No.175 of 2004 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, they had already deposited the entire compensation amount together with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.175 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruvannamalai. The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount alongwith interest.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rgr
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Record Keeper,
V.R. Records,
High Court of Madras.
1 CC to Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate SR.No. 49659
1 CC to Mr.B.Jawahar, Advocate SR.No. 49756
C.M.A.No.1505 of 2008
PUR (CO)
PSI (20.11.2014)

¶20

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

The Naging Director v. Kasiammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Naging Director v. Kasiammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vs Mohan Raj

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chakkarapani

The National Insurance Vs Lubna Saida (Minor)

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Vs Abel Samuel Wilson

dr.bulabai karpagam Vs B. Meenakshi

The Branch Manager Vs Deivanai