Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Thangasamy

Madras HC7 Mar 2016CMA/3263/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, dismissing the Transport Corporation's appeal, upheld the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.66,000/- to an injured 73-year-old claimant. The Court reasoned that older individuals require more time to heal and confirmed the disability percentage and all heads of compensation. The appeal was dismissed, and the Corporation was directed to deposit the award amount.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the appeal was not allowed. The appellant was directed to deposit the awarded compensation and interest.

The Managing Director Vs Thangasamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.03.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.3263 of 2014

¶6

The Managing Director, TNSTC (Kum) Ltd., No.46, Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam @ Periyamilaguparai, Trichy, Tamil Nadu.

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.242 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri.

¶8

The Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal mainly challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. In an accident which occurred on 14.02.2010, the claimant, Thangasamy, aged 73 years, sustained injuries. He filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. After analyzing the available oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.66,000/- as compensation. Details of the award are as follows:

¶9

Heads	Amount
Transport to Hospital	Rs. 1,000.00
Extra nourishment	Rs. 10,000.00
Pain and suffering	Rs. 5,000.00
Disability 25%	Rs. 50,000.00
Total	Rs. 66,000.00

¶10

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

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the permanent disability of the claimant at 25%, as the claimant has suffered only simple injuries. He also contended that a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment is on the higher side.

¶12

According to the claimant, he was aged 73 years at the time of accident and he has no source of income. P.W.2 - Doctor, who examined the claimant assessed his permanent disability at 25% and issued Disability Certificate vide Ex.P6. If the claimant is of an young age, certainly, this Court will be constrained to go into the nature of injuries suffered by him and ascertain its genuineness. But, in the case on hand, the injured is a septuagenarian. Injuries of any kind take more time to heal for old people. This Court also finds that no amount is awarded towards 'Attender charges', as old people with injuries cannot move around even to attend their nature's call, without an Attender. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the percentage of disability fixed by the Tribunal as also the compensation awarded under various heads, as they are just and reasonable.

¶13

Thus, compensation of a sum of Rs.66,000/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand only) awarded to the age-old injured claimant for the accident which took place in the year 2010, is confirmed. The interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum is also confirmed.

¶14

It is made clear that if no amount is deposited so far, the appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.242 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur @ Ponneri within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall pay compensation to the claimant in the form of a crossed Account Payee Cheque, favouring only the claimant and it should not be issued in favour of any other person/Company.

¶15

In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶16

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶17

True Copy

¶18

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

To :

¶21

The IV Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ponneri.

¶22

+1 cc to Mr.D.Venkatachalam Advocate sr 14507

¶23

C.M.A.No.3263 of 2014
aa14/09/2016

¶24

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

The Managing Director v. Thangasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Thangasamy

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

Managing Director, Vs Senthilkumar, S/O.Subban

M.Panchatcharam Vs N.R.Associates

The Manager Vs Vadivelan

The Managing Director Vs Murugan

E.Settu Vs N.T.R.Balasubramanian

The Managing Director Vs Palanisamy