Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Sathyamoorthy

Madras HC2 Jul 2015CMA/1287/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Transport Corporation against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the bus driver was negligent and confirmed the awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,438/= along with interest of 7.5%, excluding the period of claim petition dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The appellant directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs.

The Managing Director Vs Sathyamoorthy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.07.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

CMA No.1287 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Town and Munsif.

¶7

... Appellant / 1^st Respondent

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.Sathyamoorthy ... 1^st Respondent / Petitioner 2.Thankadurai ... 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Respondent

¶10

Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014 made in MCOP No.80 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.

¶11

For Appellant : M/s.D.Venkatachalam For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj for R1 J U D G M E N T

¶12

The appeal has been preferred by the transport corporation against the finding of negligence as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶13

Heard Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/transport corporation who would submit that the respondent was negligent and he only invited the accident by getting into the moving bus. Therefore, the negligence has to be fastened on the 1^st respondent/claimant and not against the driver of the transport corporation as rendered by the tribunal. He would further contend that the amount awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and the same has to be reduced.

¶14

A close scrutiny of the award would show that the tribunal, considering the FIR filed against the driver of the bus and the evidence of PW1 which categorically state that before the passengers got into the bus and even before the conductor blew the whistle, the driver of the bus, rash and negligently started the bus resulting in falling of the respondent from the bus. The finding of

¶15

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

¶16

the tribunal that the driver alone was responsible for the accident is based on documentary as well as oral evidence. That apart, the driver of the bus did not file any counter complaint with regard to the accident. In those circumstances, the finding of the tribunal with regard to negligence aspect cannot be disturbed or found fault with.

¶17

As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, , the claimant sustained crush injury of left thigh with fracture shaft of left femur and laceration of skin grafting was done. Moreover, the claimant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient from 10.02.2010 to 19.02.2010 and from 20.02.2010 to 27.02.2010 and underwent surgery on11.02.2010 and on 20.02.2010 for wound detriment and external fixture.

¶18

Taking into consideration the operations undergone by the claimant, mailunion of the bones, restriction of movements and skin grafting, PW3-doctor's determined the disability at 41%. Based on medical records and PW3-doctor's evidence, the tribunal rightly determined the disability at 41% and awarded a sum of Rs.82,000/- by granting Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability. Including conventional damages, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,438/- as compensation to the 1^st respondent/claimant which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. As far as interest is concerned, 7.5% awarded by the tribunal shall remain unaltered. However, it is made clear that the 1^st respondent/claimant is not entitled to interest for the period during which the claim petition was dismissed for default.

¶19

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

The appellant / transport corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount alongwith interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1^st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.S.P. Yuvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.33215 +1cc to Mr.D.Venkatachalam, Advocate, S.R.No.32905

¶27

JSV(CO) EU(24/07/2015)

¶28

CMA No.1287 of 2015

¶29

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

The Managing Director v. Sathyamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sathyamoorthy

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 G.Pachai Ammal

The Managing Director Vs Mr. Karthik @ Karthik Kumar

The Managing Director Vs Lakshmi Narayanan

Mrs.K.Saraswathi Vs Mr.R.Govindan

Geetha Vs M.Sankaralingam

T.S.Balasubramanian Vs T.D.Saravanan