Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs A.Suresh on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram,
3/137, Salamedu, Vazhudhareddu,
Villupuram – 605 602. ... Appellant
..Vs..
A.Suresh ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam (in the court of Additional
Subordinate Judges Court, Tindivanam in MCOP.No.653/2010 dated
09.07.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Saravanan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport
Corporation challenging the award dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judges Court,
Tindivanam) in MCOP.No.653 of 2010.
2. Heard Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.M.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The Appellant has challenged the impugned award questioning its
liability as well as questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the respondent/claimant. The Tribunal under the impugned
award has directed the Appellant Transport Corporation to pay the
respondent/claimant a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- together with interest
and costs as detailed hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Pain and suffering 20,000/-
Transportation cost, Attender 25,000/-
charges and damage to clothing
and loss of nutrition
Disability Compensation 56,000/-
Medical bills 1,70,000/-
Loss of income 27,000/-
(4500 x 6)
Future medical expenses 17,000/-
Total 3,15,000/-
4. Insofar as the first contention raised by the Appellant Transport
Corporation that they are not liable for the cause of the accident is
concerned, the same has been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal under
the impugned award.
5. FIR (Ex.A1) has been registered only against the driver of the
Appellant Transport Corporation. The case of the respondent/claimant as
seen from the FIR as well as from the pleadings is that due to the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by the Appellant Transport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
Corporation on 12.06.2010, the said bus dashed against him while he was
waiting in the bus stand.
6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant has filed 23
documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 and two witnesses were
examined on his side namely, the respondent/claimant himself as PW1 and
the Doctor who examined him as PW2. On the side of the Appellant
Transport Corporation, one witness was examined as RW1, but no
document was filed.
7. No contra evidence has also been produced by the Appellant
Transport Corporation before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of the
respondent/claimant that only due to the fault of the driver of the bus, the
accident had happened. The Tribunal after giving due consideration to the
materials and evidence available on record has come to the right conclusion
that the Appellant Transport Corporation is liable to compensate the claim
of the respondent/claimant on account of the rash and negligent driving by
the driver of their bus. Hence, the first contention of the Appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
Transport Corporation questioning their liability is rejected by this Court.
8. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly
income of the respondent/claimant as Rs.4,500/-, eventhough the
respondent/claimant in his claim petition has pleaded that he was a salesman
and an agriculturist, earning Rs.7,000/- per month at the time of the
accident. The accident happened in the year 2010 and after giving due
consideration to the year of the accident, this Court is of the considered
view that the assessment of notional monthly income of the
respondent/claimant at Rs.4,500/- by the Tribunal cannot be considered to
be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Transport Corporation. Hence this
court is of the considered view that the assessment of Rs.4,500/- as the
notional monthly income of the respondent/claimant at the time of the
accident is a correct assessment.
9. The Doctor PW2 has assessed the disability of the
respondent/claimant at 28%. The respondent/claimant has sustained the
following injuries: (a) Linear undisplaced fracture in bilateral temporal
bone, (b) Injury on the left ear, (c) Injury on the right ear and (d) multiple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
injuries all over the body. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the disability
certificate which was marked as Ex.A23 before the Tribunal and has
assessed the disability of the respondent/claimant at 28%. The accident
happened in the year 2010 and the Tribunal has rightly awarded a disability
compensation of Rs.56,000/- to the respondent/claimant calculated at
Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. The Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation under various heads namely Rs.25,000/- towards
transportation costs, Attender charges, damage to clothing, loss of nutrition,
Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income to the respondent/claimant for a period
of six months, Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses based on Ex.A15,
Ex.A17 and Ex.A18 and Rs.70,000/- towards future medical expenses, after
giving due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the
respondent/claimant. The overall compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal to the respondent/claimant cannot be considered to be
excessive as alleged by the Appellant Transport Corporation. Hence, the
second contention raised by the Appellant Transport Corporation is also
rejected by this Court.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
The Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award
amount along with interest and costs as assessed by the Tribunal after
deducting the amount already deposited if any to the credit of
MCOP.No.653 of 2010 within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.653 of
2010 to the bank account of the respondent/claimant through RTGS within a
period of one week thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.04.2021
nl
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2016
nl
To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Tindivanam
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2016
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
