Dismissed

C.Rajasekar v. the Managing Director

Madras HC16 Jul 2019CMA/703/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of two joined Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, upholding the contributory negligence allocation and the compensation amount awarded to the injured claimant.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 07.09.2012 confirmed; Appeals dismissed.

C.Rajasekar Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.07.2019

¶3

THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM

¶4

C.Rajasekar .. Appellant in CMA.No.703 of 2015 and Respondent in CMA.704 of 2015 Vs. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore Region, Vellore. ... Respondent in CMA.No.703 of 2015 and Appellant in CMA.704 of 2015

¶5

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore Region, Vellore. COMMON PRAYER:

¶6

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed against the Judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 made in MCOP No. 495 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Poonamallee.

¶7

In C.M.A.No.703 of 2015 For Appellant : M/s.Jayanthi Bhaskar for M/s.J.Mahalingam. For Respondent : Mr.S.Sairaman In C.M.A.No.704 of 2015 For Appellant : Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondent : M/s.Jayanthi Bhaskar for M/s.J.Mahalingam.

¶8

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

¶9

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶10

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the award dated 07.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.495 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Poonamallee.

¶11

2.Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and same award and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their respective ranks in the claim petition for the sake of convenience.

¶12

3.The appellant in C.M.A.No. 703 of 2015 is claimant in M.C.O.P.No. 495 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Poonamallee. The claimant filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 09.12.2007. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by both the rider of the motor cycle/claimant as well as the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus and fixed the contributory negligence between the claimant and the driver of the offending bus as 40% and 60% respectively. Not being satisfied with the award amount and the liability, the claimant has come out with C.M.A.No. 703 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. Against the said award dated 07.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.495 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Poonamallee, the respondent-Insurance Company has come out with C.M.A.No. 704 of 2015 challenging the compensation and liability fastened on them.

¶13

Heard bothsides and perused the documents available on record.

¶14

On perusal of records, it is seen that the injured sustained injuries because of the accident. But regarding mode of the accident, both the appellant as well as the respondents placed contradictory evidence before the tribunal. It is the grievance of the appellant/insurance company that the driver did not posses the valid driving license at the time of the accident. It is very much proved by his own evidence before the tribunal in the cross examination.

¶15

The other grievance raised by the claimant/appellant in CMA. No. 703 of 2015 is that when it is the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, fixing the liability on the claimant is not reasonable. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 CJ 926. Based on the clear

¶16

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

¶17

evidence, especially PW3, who is neither the complainant nor eyewitness has not received any summons from the Court. He voluntarily appeared before the Court and deposed that at the time of the accident he was proceeding to Sriperumbudur via Chengalpattu and he saw the accident at the distance of 10 feet. He has also deposed that the accident had occured only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus bearing Reg.No. 1822, who over took the two wheeler of PW3 and dashed against the motory cycle of the claimant's/injured vehicle TN 21-W-1589.

¶18

Though the Insurance Company/appellant in CMA.No. 704 of 2015 contended to set aside the contributory negligence fixed on them by stating that the accident was happened solely on the part of the injured perosn, it is seen from the award that the tribunal after observing the evidence and documents has come to the conclusion that the claimant did not posses the valid driving licnese at the time of the accident and also by analysing the rough sketch, the tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence on the claimant as well as the Insurance company, which is very and proper and reasonable and does not require any intereference by this Court.

¶19

Further, as per the evidence of PW2, Dr.Subramaniam who issued the disability certificate by assessing the disability at 90%, the tribunal has taken 90% by applying multiplier has awared Rs. 8,74,800/- towards loss of earning power is very much reasonable and hence the sum arrived under the said head need not be modified. With regard to the sum for Pain and Suffering, the tribunal by considering the age, manner of accident and nature of injuries, period of treatment, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which is also proper and reasonable. In view of the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the disability certificate issued by PW2, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is proper and does not require any modification.

¶20

As far as contributory negligence is concerned, it is seen from the records that though the claimant has not relied on the particulars of Ex.P1-FIR, he has admitted that the police has regisered the case and conducted the investigation. When the informant of Ex.P1 namely RW1 has deposed about the manner of the accident and lodging complaint and registering Ex.P1 by the concerned Police, Ex.P1 cannot be straightaway rejected. In view of the evidence of PW1 and RW1 coupled with Ex.P1, it can be concluded that both the drivers are responsible for the accident and hence fixing contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler/appellant and the driver of the transport corporation bus would be proper. The tribunal has also rightly discussed the above facts and fixed the

¶21

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

¶22

contributory nelgigence on the part of the claimant/appellant herein at 40% and on the part of the driver of the transport corporation bus at 60%, which is also very much proper and reasonable.

¶23

In view of the above discussison, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the tribunal and the contributory negligence fixed between the claimant and the driver of the transport corporation bus is found proper and does not require any intereference by this Court.

¶24

In the result, the judgment and decree made in MCOP. No.495 of 2010 dated 07.09.2012 on the filed of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Poonamallee are confirmed. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ak To The Additional District & Sessions Judge-III. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Poonamallee.

¶26

+2cc to M/s.J.Mahalingam, Advocate, S.R.No.60281 +1cc to Mr.S.Sairaman, Advocate, S.R.No.60104

¶27

C.M.A.Nos.703 & 704 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶28

CNR (CO) CS/04/06/2020

¶29

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

C.Rajasekar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajasekar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Chandra

Chidambaradasan Vs the Managing Director

Anitha Vs E.Vasanthakumar

The Divisional Manager Vs R. Rajathilagam

National Insurance Company Vs M.Murugesan

Perumal Vs Ramachandiran