Dhanamary vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 9161 Mad

                                                                            C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED: 07.04.2021

                                                  CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                            C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

                 Dhanamary                                                ... Appellant

                                                        Vs.

                 The Managing Director,
                 Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
                 Pallavan House, Anna Salai,
                 Chennai – 600 002.                                       ... Respondent

                       Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                 Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2019
                 made in M.C.O.P.No.648 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents
                 Claims Tribunal, Principal Special Judge, Special Court under E.C. &
                 NDPS Act, Chennai.

                                       For Appellant      : Mr.Amar D Pandiya
                                       For Respondent     : Mr.K.Moorthy


                                                JUDGMENT

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and decree

dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Principal Special Judge, Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act, Chennai

in M.C.O.P.No. 648 of 2016.

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 1 of 5 C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

2.The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the

appellant, on the ground that there was also an accident injured due to

the motor car with the following observations:-

The A R recitals would show that ''two wheeler tyre got bursted'' No negligence could be attributed to the driver, for the tyre burst, which is the fact that it is sheer Act of God. Even though it is a beneficial legislation, this is a case where the petitioner shall not be entitled to any compensation. Moreover, there is no medical records filed by the petitioner.

3.The Tribunal has referred to Ex.P1 FIR to conclude that there

was a tyre burst which was an Act of God. The appellant has filed only

four documents namely FIR, Accident Register Copy, Copy of Aadhar

Card and Copy of the Bank Pass Book and had claimed a compensation

of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. In this appeal, the appellant has

restricted the compensation to Rs.3,00,000/-.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

5.The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant

on a totally erroneous ground that the injury was due to an Act of God,

even though, the injury was due to tyre burst. I am therefore of the view,

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 2 of 5 C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition. At the same

time, it is noticed that the petitioner had extracts of the Accident Register

(AR) in Ex.P.2. The petitioner appears to have suffered minor injuries.

The nature of injury as per the claim observed as far as follows:-

(i)Left leg Abrasion

(ii)Multiple grievous injuries all over the body

6.However, there are no records to substantiate the nature of

injury. Fact of injury suffered by the Appellant is established.

7.Considering the same, I am inclined to award a sum of

Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The respondent/State Transport

Corporation is therefore directed to pay aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/-

together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of numbering of the

claim petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already

deposited by it, 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 3 of 5 C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

8.On such deposit being made by the respondent/Insurance

Company, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same

together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already

withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.

9.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed with the

above observations. No costs.

07.04.2021 jas Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

To:

1.The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Special Judge, Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act, Chennai.

3.The V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Madras.

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 4 of 5 C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jas

C.M.A.No.15 of 2020

07.04.2021

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 5 of 5