Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Dr. Usha Devi

Madras HC18 Jul 2014CMA/1594/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the compensation quantum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court held that the compensation, primarily for medical expenses based on supporting bills, was reasonable and in the absence of evidence for permanent disability, the appeal lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. Appellants directed to deposit award amount with interest and cost less amount already deposited within four weeks.

The Managing Director Vs Dr. Usha Devi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 18.07.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

C.M.A.No.1594 of 2014

¶6

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶8

The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation Chennai – 2 .. Appellant/1st Respondent

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Dr.Usha Devi 2.Arathi(Mionr) rep. by her mother/natural guardian 1st petitioner 3.Srinivasan Reddy 4.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited rep.by its Manager, Bangalore. 5.R.Vadivelu .. Respondents/Petitioners

¶11

& Respondents 2 to 4

¶12

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Pondicherry made in M.C.O.P.No.654 of 2005.

¶13

For Appellant: Mr.A.Babu

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in and by award dated 19.11.2013, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.

¶16

It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on 19.06.2003, at about 01.00 a.m, while they were travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-6618 belonging to the appellant Corporation, which was proceeding towards Coimbatore, a van bearing Registration No.KA-03-C-2034 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus, due to which the first petitioner in the M.C.O.P sustained deep lacerated wound on the left side of her face/left cheek with compound fracture and the second petitioner in the M.C.O.P sustained injury on her

¶17

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

¶18

forehead. Hence, the claimants have made a claim for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation.

¶19

In order to prove their claim before the Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as PW1 and 33 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P33. On the side of the respondents, one Mr.Vadivel was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

¶20

The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence adduced on either side, came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of both the vehicles, namely Transport Corporation bus as well as the van, which is insured with the 3^rd respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation to the first petitioner and since the injury sustained by the second petitioner was simple in nature, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering for the second petitioner and thus, passed an award for a total sum of Rs.1,88,000/- and held the Transport Corporation and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited jointly liable to pay the compensation in the ratio of 50:50. Now the present appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the higher side as the injuries sustained by the claimants are only simple in nature.

¶21

Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record.

¶22

On perusal of the material available on record, I find that after the accident the first respondent in the appeal was admitted in the hospital from 19.06.2003 to 23.06.2003. Since the claimants have not examined the Medical Officer to prove the disability suffered by them, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of permanent disability. A major portion of the compensation i.e., Rs.85,000/-, was awarded only towards medical expenses. The same is supported by bills. Similarly, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, the amount awarded under the different heads are also appears to be reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant Transport Corporation and the fourth respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit their entire award amount in the ratio of 50:50 with proportionate interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of

¶24

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

¶25

receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, first respondent is permitted to withdraw the same on due application. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
Dated: 05.08.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To
The II Additional District Judge,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Pondicherry.
+ 1 cc to Mr.A.Babu, Advocate Sr.32222
C.M.A.No.1594 of 2014 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
NG(CO)
Eu 16.8.14

¶27

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

The Managing Director v. Dr. Usha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Dr. Usha Devi

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

Minor Ramesh Vs Ravikumar

R. Subramani Vs Inspector-General of

Lakshmi Vs Viveganandan

G. Malini W/O.R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling

The Branch Manager Vs Singaravelu