Dismissed

The Managing Director,, Tnstc.,Vellore v. Chitrarasu

Madras HC21 Apr 2021CMA/414/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by a bus transport corporation against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of injury and compensation, finding no infirmity or irregularity in the assessment.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Managing Director,, Tnstc.,Vellore Vs Chitrarasu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

C.M.A.NO.414 OF 2014
AND
M.P.NO.1 OF 2014

¶6

The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited, Villupuram
Division II Ltd.,
Rangapuram, Vellore.

¶7

... Appellant/Respondent

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Chitrarasu

¶10

 ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Vellore Made in M.C.O.P.No.362 of 2012 dated
10.10.2013.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish

¶13

For Respondent: Mr.M.Sivakumar

¶14

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against
the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore Made in
M.C.O.P.No.362 of 2012 dated 10.10.2013.

¶15

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

¶16

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to hereunder according to their litigative status before the
Tribunal.

¶17

3. The case of the claimant is that on 26.05.2012, when

¶18

the claimant was travelled in the bus owned by the respondent, the driver of the respondent's bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus which was stopped in the bus stop. Due to which, the claimant sustained injuries in his face and therefore, his teeth was broken and sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was taken to Nalam Hospital at Vellore. His disability was assessed at 35%. Hence, the claim petition.

¶19

4. Resisting the same, the respondent filed the counter
stating that only because the bus was parked on the road, the
accident took place and the respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶20

5. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked. On
perusal of the evidence available on records and also
considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, the Tribunal found that a sum of Rs.1,25,082/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand and Eighty Two only) as
compensation payable by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same,
the appellant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶21

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
raised the ground that the claimant sustained injuries on his
face. Whereas, the Doctor assessed the disability at 35% is
permanent disability. It is only a partial disability and due
to the said disability, no loss caused to the claimant.

¶22

7. Heard Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.M.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.

¶23

8. On 26.05.2012, the claimant was travelled in the bus
belongs to the respondent. The driver of the bus was driving the
bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus
which was stopped in the bus stop. Therefore, the claimant

¶24

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

¶25

sustained injuries on his face and also his two teeth were
broken and injuries all over his entire body. Hence, he was
taken to Nalam Hospital, Vellore to undergone surgery.

¶26

9. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, deposed that
the claimant received disability certificate and the same was
marked as Ex.P5, it revealed that Jaw Malunion of Fracture of
Mandible with a step Deformity causing Defective Alignment of
teeth. Due to the said injury, the claimant cannot bite and
chew hard eatables and Non-vegetarian foods. Therefore, P.W.2
has rightly assessed 35% disability. Even though the Tribunal
had taken into account only 30% of disability and awarded proper
compensation, this Court finds no infirmity or irregularity in
the order passed by the Court below.

¶27

10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

rna

¶33

To

¶34

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
 Vellore.

¶35

2. The Section Officer,
 V.R.Section,
 Madras High Court,
 Chennai.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.M.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.24353

¶37

C.M.A.No.414 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶38

JPL(CO)
RLP(09/11/2021)

¶39

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

The Managing Director,, Tnstc.,Vellore v. Chitrarasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director,, Tnstc.,Vellore v. Chitrarasu

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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs R.Thilagam

Thilagam Vs R.Arunthathi

M/S.United India Insurance Vs Minor Priyanka

G.Mouly Prasad Vs Mr.v.Suresh

The Icici Lombard Vs Vengammal

M/S.National Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Yasoda