The Managing Director vs Raj
2021 Latest Caselaw 10653 Mad

                                                       CMA No.845 of 2011

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                          DATED: 26.04.2021

                                CORAM:

       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                          CMA No845 of 2011
                                 and
                           M.P.No.1 of 2011


The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Chennimalai Road, Erode - 1                                  ... Appellant

                                 Versus

1. Raj
S/o Mnuniyan

2. Chandran
S/o Sadaippan                                    ... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the award made in MCOP.No.153 of 2009 dated
30.04.2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge
Perundurai.
                  For Appellant            : Mr.B. Vijayalakshmi
                  For Respondent-1         : Mr. V. Kathirvelu
                  For Respondent- 2         : Given up


Page 1 of 6
                                                            CMA No.845 of 2011

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree dated

30.04.2010 made in MCOP.No.153 of 2009 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Jude, Perundurai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 19.03.2000, when the claimant

was walking near Nallampatti to Nasianur road at Ravi Bakery, a bus was

came from behind the claimant in a rash and negligent manner and hit

against him and caused accident. Due to the said accident, he sustained

fractures and grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital

and had taken treatment as inpatient for four weeks. Hence the claimant

filed a claim petition seeking compensation at Rs.3,10,000/-.

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed a counter

stating that the respondent bus driver never drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligence manner. The claimant was crossing the road infront of the

CMA No.845 of 2011

parked bus and the driver of the bus noticing a person, hooted horn and at

that time, he suddenly crossed the road in front of the parked another bus

without noticing the oncoming bus and came to the middle of the road and

hitting on the front side of the bus and fell down. Therefore, the second

respondent is not held to be liable to pay any compensation as claimed by

the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the side of the claimant, he examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was

examined and no exhibits were marked. On the basis of the evidence

available on records and also considering the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal found that the first

respondent driver's negligence alone the accident was took place and

awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,632/- as compensation payable by the

respondents jointly or severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

from the date of claim petition till the deposit of the award amount.

Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the sole ground

CMA No.845 of 2011

that the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier method at 30% for the

disability assessed by P.W.2 to the claimant.

7. The case of the injured : Due to the accident, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures in his chest, hip and left

hand and also sustained injuries all over the body. Though, P.W.2-Doctor

has not treated the injured claimant at the relevant point of time, he

examined the injured one year after the date of accident and he himself

admitted that the assessment of disability at 30%. However, the Tribunal

reduced the assessment of disability from 30% to 15%, only for the reason

that the assessment was made after one year from the date of accident and

also PW.2-Doctor has not treated the injured and assessed the disability of

the claimant.

8. On a perusal of the records shows that the claimant even at the

time of claim petition he was suffering fracture on the chest, hip and left

hand hip. The claimant is an agriculturist and he cannot be able to do the

agricultural work. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier

CMA No.845 of 2011

method and reduced the assessment of disability from 30% to 15%.

Therefore, nothing warrant to interfere with the judgment and decree passed

by the Tribunal by this Court.

9. In fine, the award dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Perundurai in M.C.O.P.No.153 of

2009 is hereby confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.04.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking Order lpp

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Perundurai.

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

CMA No.845 of 2011

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lpp

CMA No. 845 of 2011

26.04.2021