Madras High Court
Jayachitra vs Premalatha on 23 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
Jayachitra ... Appellant
vs.
1.Premalatha
2.United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office III, Arjuna Towers,
2nd Floor, D.No.248/164, Cherry Road,
Salem 636 301. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.10.2019
made in M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Sub Court ) Tiruchengodu.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For 1st Respondent : No Appearance
For 2nd respondent : Ms.Harini for
M/s.M.B.Gopalan
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant in this appeal. She is aggrieved by
the impugned Judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Tiruchendgoe in
M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2015
2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has
computed the compensation of Rs.99,670 /- out of which, 20% towards
has been deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the
appellant and thus the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of
Rs.79,736/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of payment, to the
appellant/claimant.
3. The break up of the amount awarded by the Tribunal are
summarised below:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
S.No. Heads Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
1 Permanent disability Rs. 15,000/-
2 Pain and sufferings Rs 10,000/-
3 Loss of income Rs. 15,000
4 Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000/-
5 Attender charges Rs. 5,000/-
5 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
6 Medical expenses Rs. 44,670/-
Total Rs. 99,670/-
Less: 20% negligence on the part of the Rs. 19,934/-
appellant -----------------
Rs. 79,736/-
------------------
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-claimant has filed the
present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
5. The case of the appellant is that on 28.03.2014 at about 4.00
p.m. when the appellant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.TN.
30.AT.7585 near Ayouhiapatnam at SPM hospital, the driver of the bus
allegedly drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the
lorry, as a result of which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal erred in fixing 20% of the contributory negligence on the part of
the appellant. He further submits that the tribunal also ought to have
awarded towards medical expenses incurred by the appellant and
therefore prayed for modifying the award of the Tribunal.
7. Defending the impugned Judgment and decree, the learned
counsel for the second respondent submits that the appellant was
responsible for the injury suffered by her and therefore 20% contributory
negligence on the passenger travelled by the insured bus.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for both sides and I have perused the impugned Judgment and
decree and exhibits marked before the Tribunal and prescriptions of the
deposition of the witnesses of the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
9. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
and negligent riding of the insured bus belonging to the first respondent
but has fixed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant
and directed the second respondent-Insurance Company, being the
insurer of the bus to pay a sum of Rs.76,736/- towards 80% of the award
amount as compensation to the appellant.
10. Ex.P1/R.1- FIR states that the accident occurred when the
insured bus tried to overtake a lorry which was proceeding in front of the
bus. Whereas, Ex.R2 - Final Report, seems to indicate that the lorry
came from the opposite direction and that the appellant was at fault
inasmuch as she held her hand outside window, as a result of which, she
suffered injures. Both the appellant and the 2nd respondent have not filed
any accident sketch. The manner in which the accident has taken place
was not been explained either in Ex.P.1/R1-FIR or in the Final Report-
Ex.R2. Nevertheless, the deposition of the witnesses indicate that there
was a collision from a lorry which was coming from the opposite
direction indicating that either the driver of the bus was negligent
inasmuch as he should not crossed the road margin. It appears that the
driver of the insured bus fixed over taking a vehicle infront of it when the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
accident took place. The fact that there was a collision between the lorry
and the insured bus comes out from the deposition of the witnesses.
Therefore, I am inclined to conclude that there was no justification by
fixing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
11. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgment and
decree fixing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is
set aside. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company is liable
to pay entire amount of compensation of Rs.99,670/- determined by the
Tribunal to the appellant.
12. The 2rd respondent Insurance Company is therefore directed
to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation together with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of such
deposit, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
13. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the aforesaid amount of compensation, less any amount already
withdrawn, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed with the above observations. No cost.
23.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kkd
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Sub Court ) Tiruchengodu.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.No.508 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN,J.
kkd
C.M.A.No.1508 of 2020
23.04.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 8 of 8
