Dismissed

The Managing Director, v. v.Nagoor

Madras HC7 Jan 2014CMA(MD)/2039/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by a Transport Corporation against an accident compensation award. The court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order, validating the reliance on an Accident Register for assessing injuries and compensating the claimant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award confirmed; Appellant directed to deposit award amount plus interest and costs to claimant within eight weeks.

The Managing Director, Vs v.Nagoor — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 07.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A(MD)No.2039 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2013

¶3

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited,Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶4

..Appellant/Respondent

¶5

¶6

V.Nagoor ..Respondent/Petitioner

¶7

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2005, dated 07.11.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(III Additional Sub-Court), Tiruchirappalli.

¶8

For Appellant :M/s.P.prabhakaran

¶9

JUDGEMENT

¶10

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation against the award of Rs.1,47,000/- for the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant in the accident occurred on 31.07.2004, when the claimant was riding his tricycle which was hit by the appellant/Transport Corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore the claim Petition.

¶11

2.After contest, the trial Court found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation bus and assessed 45% disability and awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/-, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5000/- for transportation, Rs.5000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs.5000/- for medical expenses, Rs.6000/- for attendant charges, Rs.1000/- for loss of clothe, totalling to Rs.1,47,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a and costs. Aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation is before this Court.

¶12

3.Mr.P.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even in the absence of details of the injuries, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was also observed in Para 9 of the judgment, relied upon Ex.P2 and awarded the amount based on the same. He found fault with the

¶13

¶14

Tribunal for having awarded the amount in the absence of oral evidence as well as the details of the injuries in the claim petition. Therefore seeks for setting aside the award.

¶15

4.The only question to be gone into is the quantum of compensation. The accident occurred on 31.07.2004. On the same day itself, the respondent/claimant was admitted in the hospital. At that time, Ex.P2-Accident Register was prepared by the Doctors and it was prepared on 31.7.2004 itself. The injuries sustained by the claimant was duly reflected in the Accident Register. When the Accident Register is filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was right in relying upon the same in determining the compensation based on that and there can be no exception to that. In the absence of the Accident Register or any other documents, if the amount has been awarded, then the Tribunal award has to be set aside, whereas, in this case, Ex.P2 has been duly filed. If the details of the injuries were not given in the claim petition and were not spoken to by P.W.1 or the claimant's witnesses, it may be the fault of the Claimant's Advocate and the default on the part of the Advocate cannot be put against the sufferer, namely the victim. Therefore the trial Court was right in relying upon Ex.P2Accident Register and based on which the disability was determined at 45%. That apart, P.W.2-Doctor also spoke about that. Therefore the award of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

¶16

5.In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2005, dated 7.11.2012 is confirmed. Since the award amount has not been deposited so far by the Transport Corporation, the appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount together with accrued interest and costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire award amount deposited by the appellant/Transport Corporation to the claimant. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶18

/True Copy/

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Sub-Court), Tiruchirappalli.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.P.Prabhakaran, Advocate, in SR. No.1214.

¶23

C.M.A(MD)No.2039 of 2013

¶24

07.01.2014

¶25

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

¶26

vsn

¶27

msm 03.02.2014 p2/3c

The Managing Director, v. v.Nagoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. v.Nagoor

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

G. Deivaprakasam Vs Asan Aliar

Shahana Abbasi, Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn

Ramu, Vs T.Vijaya Kumar

United India Insurance Co. Vs Jayakodi, W/O. K. Chinnasamy

The Manager Vs Vellaiyammal W/O.Venkatraman

The Managing Director, Vs Thailammai