Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. Mathankumar

Madras HC7 Feb 2014CMA(MD)/832/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against a compensation award of Rs.17.50 lakhs granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal following a road accident resulting in amputation of the victim's right arm.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed; the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 17,50,000 was confirmed.

The Branch Manager, Vs Mathankumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.832 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶7

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal District.

¶8

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Mathankumar ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

2.Karunanithi 3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam. ... Respondent Nos.2 & 3/ Respondent Nos.1 & 3

¶12

(2^nd Respondent stood exparte before the Tribunal)

¶13

Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 28.12.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai.

¶14

For Appellant : Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan For R – 1 : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For R – 2 : Dispensed with For R – 3 : Mr.K.Gokul

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM,J.)

¶17

The award dated 28.12.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶18

The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai, for getting compensation of Rs.45,00,000/due to road accident, wherein the present appellant and respondents 2 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 have been shown as respondents.

¶19

¶20

In the petition it is averred that the petitioner is a resident of Pudhupatti Village and he studied upto 12^th standard. He used to perform Homam and thereby earned Rs.10,000/- per mensum. On 27.02.2011, the petitioner has travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-49N-1300 and the same has been driven from Thirupathur to Thirukostiyur. At that time, the driver of the first respondent has driven a lorry from West to East and in a curve has dashed against the bus in which the petitioner has travelled. Due to accident, the petitioner has lost his right arm. Since the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and the same has been insured with the second respondent, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.

¶21

In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is averred that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the first respondent. The accident has happened due to unforeseen circumstances. The petitioner has claimed excessive compensation. Under the said circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

On the basis of the divergent contentions raised on either side, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has granted a compensation of Rs.17,50,000/-. Against the quantum and also liability fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has attacked the liability fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as quantum of compensation by way of engendering the following points:-

¶24

a) The accident in question has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and prior to accident, a cow has suddenly crossed the road. Under the said circumstances, the driver of the first respondent swerved the lorry, but unfortunately it touched the bus and further the petitioner, at the time of accident, has kept his right arm outside the bus. Under the said circumstances, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent.

¶25

b) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed 100% permanent disability, whereas medical evidence says that the petitioner has sustained only 80% permanent disability and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has unnecessarily awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses and therefore, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is totally erroneous.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has contended that for the purpose of proving juxta position of the place of occurrence, on the side of the petitioner Ex.P.4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been filed, wherein it has been clearly stated that the entire accident has happened on a curve and before accident, the bus in which

¶27

¶28

the petitioner travelled has crossed 90% of the curve, but the driver of the first respondent has driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which the petitioner has travelled and the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and further the petitioner has lost his right arm, considering the gravity of injury, amputation sustained by the petitioner, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed 100% permanent disability and further the petitioner is still getting treatment and therefore, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not require any interference.

¶29

It is an admitted fact that the accident has happened on 27.02.2011. For the purpose of proving the factum of accident and also alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent, the petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and in fact, he has given a picturesque evidence with regard to factum of occurrence and also negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent.

¶30

On the side of the petitioner, Ex.P.4 has been filed. Ex.P.4 is a rough sketch, wherein it has been explicitly stated that the accident has happened in the middle of a curve.

¶31

The contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, the entire accident has happened. Even though in the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is stated to the effect that the driver of the first respondent has not driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident, for the purpose of disproving the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner, the driver of the first respondent has not been examined. Therefore, it is quite clear that from the evidence given by the petitioner coupled with Ex.P.4, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent.

¶32

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- by way of compensation. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant, in the medical evidence produced on the side of the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner has sustained 80% permanent disability. In fact, this Court has seen the photograph of the petitioner which has been affixed on the petition, wherein it has clearly shown that the petitioner has lost his right arm. Since the petitioner has lost his right arm, he cannot do any work in future. Under the said circumstances, considering the gravity of injury, amputation sustained by the petitioner, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed 100% permanent disability. Even though in the petition it has been stated that the petitioner has earned Rs.10,000/- per mensum, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, considering the age of the petitioner and also his educational qualification, has fixed Rs.7,000/- per mensum and in that way, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,44,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Considering the fact that the petitioner has lost his right arm, this Court is of the view that even for fixing artificial arm, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner has to spend something. Under the said circumstances, future medical expenses awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is

¶33

¶34

not erroneous. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation towards medical expenses actually spent by the petitioner and also towards pain and suffering and transport. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not awarded excessive compensation and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is reasonable and the same does not require any interference and altogether, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. The award passed in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai.

¶42

+1CC TO M/S.VIJAYAKUMARI NATARAJAN, ADVOCATE IN SR.NO.8102 +1CC TO MR.N.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE IN SR.NO. 8210

¶43

¶44

SR : 21.02.2014 : 4p/4c

¶45

C.M.A(MD)No.832 of 2013

¶46

07.02.2014

¶47

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

The Branch Manager, v. Mathankumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Mathankumar

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

The Managing Director Vs R. Sathyabama

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Stallion Garments

Shanmugam Vs Ravichandran (Doctor)

Jeyanthi Vs Gladson

Nidhiya Vs Vairakannu Ammal, (Died)

Uma Rani Vs Muthu Kumar