Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Minor Bhakyalakshmi (Aged 15)

Madras HC20 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/1341/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by a Transport Corporation challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence and the awarded compensation of Rs. 1,82,800. The appeal on liability and quantum was dismissed, and the corporation was directed to deposit the amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 1,82,800 with interest at 6% p.a. for four weeks; connected petition closed.

The Managing Director Vs Minor Bhakyalakshmi (Aged 15) — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012

¶7

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division, Pudukottai & Pudukottai Town, Pudukottai.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Minor Bhakyalakshmi represented by her mother and next friend Lakshmi.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Devakottai.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash For Respondent : No appearance

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 8_

¶15

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The instant appeal has been filed by the respondent in claim petition, challenging the findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable by the appellant herein/respondent in claim petition.

¶18

The respondent/claimant, represented by her natural guardian/mother, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal stating that when she attempted to cross the road, a bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her, causing grievous injuries, as a result of which, she was admitted in the hospital from 02.07.2007 to 23.07.2017 as an inpatient and thereafter, was taking treatment as an outpatient.

¶19

The appellant/Transport Corporation filed a counter denying the averments in the claim petition and stating that the accident took place only because the claimant had crossed the road suddenly and that, in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 8_

¶21

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶22

Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined two

¶23

witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined R.W.1 and did not mark any document.

¶24

The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and awarded the compensation at Rs.1,82,800/- payable by the appellant to the respondent herein.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence of R.W.1driver of the bus in proper prospective and ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the respondent/claimant for crossing the road suddenly and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is excessive and prayed for reduction of the compensation.

¶26

Though notice was issued to the sole respondent/claimant, it appears that notice has not been served and the appellant/Transport

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Page No. 3 of 8

¶29

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶30

Corporation has also not produced the proof of service of private notice

¶31

sent to the respondent. In view of the order, which this Court proposes to

¶32

pass, notice may not be necessary.

¶33

The questions involved in the instant appeal are as follows:

¶34

‘a.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding the appellant is liable to pay the compensation?

¶35

b.Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?’

¶36

As regards the first question, it is seen that the

¶37

respondent/claimant had examined the Doctor as P.W.2 to prove the nature of the accident and also the injuries sustained by the claimant. The respondent/claimant has also marked Ex.P1-First Information Report and Ex.P4-the Final Report filed by the Police against the driver of the bus. It would show that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. It was also admitted by R.W.1-the driver of the bus that the case was registered against him. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence. In the light of the evidence of P.W.1, the other evidence on record and the fact that R.W.1’s evidence

¶38

cannot be believed, this Court is of the view that the finding of the

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 8_

¶40

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶41

Tribunal that the driver of the bus was guilty of rash and negligent driving, is justified. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant/Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation.

¶42

As regards the quantum of compensation, this Court finds that the respondent had examined P.W.2-Doctor and produced the medical records, namely, Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, Ex.P7-Medical Bills and Ex.P9-X-ray, to show the injuries were sustained by the claimant.

¶43

The Tribunal had found that the respondent/claimant had sustained 30% permanent disability and had awarded Rs.1,500/- for a percentage of disability, which is justified. The Tribunal had awarded at Rs.25,000/- towards mental shock and agony, Rs.25,000/- towards attendants, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.25,000/- towards future expenses. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,82,800/- is justified under the above heads and therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.

¶44

The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________

¶46

Page No. 5 of 8

¶47

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶48

Rs.1,82,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount together with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. The respondent/claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the award amount.

¶50

The respondent/claimant was a minor, when the claim petition was filed in the year 2009. She would have attained the age of majority now. Hence, she is directed to file an appropriate application for recording her majority and to withdraw her share.

¶51

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________

¶53

Page No. 6 of 8

¶54

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶55

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶56

20.08.2024

¶57

Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd To: 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Devakottai. 2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 8_

¶59

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶60

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶61

apd

¶62

C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2012

¶63

20.08.2024

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 8 of 8_

The Managing Director v. Minor Bhakyalakshmi (Aged 15)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Minor Bhakyalakshmi (Aged 15)

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

N.Sankar Pandiyan Vs Mrs.Sree Jamol

The Divisional Manager Vs P.Senthilkumar

The Branch Manager, Vs Mejo

S.Kanaga Vs Masanamoorthy

Branch Manager Vs S.Arun

The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited Vs Sabthaharshmee