The Managing Director vs V.Chinnaswamy
2021 Latest Caselaw 9254 Mad

                                                                                     C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 08.04.2021

                                                    CORAM

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                              C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

                   The Managing Director,
                   Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
                   Central Division, K.H.Road,
                   Bengaluru – 560 027.                                           ...Appellant
                                                       Vs

                   V.Chinnaswamy                                                  ... Respondent

                   Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                   Vehicles Act, 1988, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree dated
                   29.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3362 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
                   Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge) at Krishnagiri.
                                      For Appellant     : Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
                                      For Respondent    : Mr.K.Prasanna

                                                   JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and

decree dated 29.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3362 of 2013 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge) at Krishnagiri.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.3362 of 2013 on the file

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The

respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-

as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place

on 05.08.2011.

3.According to the respondent, on 03.08.2011, while he was travelling as

a pillion rider in Hero Honda Splendor Bike bearing Registration

No.TN.24/V.4222 and one S.Suresh was riding the said Motor Cycle. They were

proceeding in Thiruvannamalai to Krishnagiri Road. The rider of the said Motor

Cycle was proceeding on the left sode of the road, slowly and cautiously

observing the traffic rules. When the said two wheeler was proceeding near the

Fibre factory at Vettiyampatti in Thiruvannamalai to Krishnagiri Main Road, the

driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA.01/F.9156, belonging to the

appellant drove the bus in a rash and negligenct manner without minding the

rules of the road and dashed on the said Hero Honda Motor Cycle and caused

the accident. Due to the said accident, the pillion rider sustained head injury

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

and multiple grievous injuries on his right leg and other injuries all over his

body. Therefore, the respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the

appellant-Transport Corporation.

4.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving

by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and

directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,36,800/- as compensation to the

respondent.

5.Challenging the liabilities as well as quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the

present appeal.

Liabilities:

6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident has

occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the two

wheeler. The rider of the two wheeler rode the bike by carrying the firewoods.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

The pillion rider travelled on the bike by sitting on the firewoods. Therefore,

they were not able to control the bike and hit on the appellant/Transport

Corporation bus and thereby the accident was occurred. Therefore, he submitted

that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus.

However, this aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and fixed the entire

liability on the driver of the bus.

7.He further submitted that the driver of the bus was examined and he

deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding by the

rider of the two wheeler. Further, they were carrying the firewoods in the bike.

The Court below without considering the same, by examining the FIR, which

was marked as Ex.A1 and upon perusal of the deposition of P.W.1/Claimant,

has come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation

bus.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials

available on record.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

9.In the F.I.R, it has been stated that the accident was occurred due to the

negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. Further

the management of the appellant has cut off one increment of the driver of the

bus. Taking into consideration all these aspect, the Tribunal has fixed the entire

liability on the Transport Corporation.

10.A perusal of the deposition of P.W.1, shows that the accident took

place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. However, on

behalf of the appellant/respondent, except the driver of the bus, none of the

witness was examined in order to prove the negligence of the rider of the two

wheeler. Under such circumstances, the Court below fixed the entire liability on

the part of the appellant/Transport Corporation. Therefore, I do not find any

infirmity on the finding of the Court below with regard to the liability fixation

against the Transport Corporation.

Quantum:

11.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present

case the injured is working as mason and the Court below has fixed 40%

disability. He further submitted that the claimant came to the Court and deposed

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

the evidence in a good state of mind and the disability has not affected his life in

any way. The Court below fixed the the notional income of the injured as a sum

of Rs.6,500/- and awarded compensation by applying multiplier method, which

is on the higher side. The Court below ought not to have awarded compensation

by virtue of multiplier method. The Court ought to have awarded a sum of

Rs.2,000/- per percentage as loss of income and ought to have awarded

compensation based on the percentage method. Therefore, to that extent the

award of the Court below needs to be set aside.

12.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the

knowledge of this Court that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest. As far as the

law settled by this Court, the same needs to be reduced as 7.5%.

13.The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the

interest may be reduced to 7.5%.

14.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent

and perused the materials available on record.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

15.Upon perusal, it appears that the claimant sustained severe injury on

his head and some of the bones were removed, which was confirmed by the

Doctor/P.W.2. Further, Ex.P6/X-Ray and Ex.P5/disability certificate would

prove that the claimant has sustained severe injury on the head. He is working

as a mason and he has to work on the high rise building. The disability suffered

by him will definitely affect his nature of work. Taking into consideration of all

these aspect, the Court below has rightly fixed the notional income as a sum of

Rs.6,500/- and awarded compensation by applying multiplier method.

Therefore, this Court does not find any error on the part of the Court below in

applying the multiplier method and does not find any merit in the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

16.As far as the amount awarded under other heads are concerned, the

learned counsel for the appellant has not made any objection. Therefore, this

Court concur with the finding of the Court below with the amounts awarded

under Serial Nos.1 to 8.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

17.As far as interest rate is concerned, the rate of interest awarded by the

Tribunal as 9% is reduced to 7.5%.

18.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

hereby the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal as 9% is reduced to 7.5%. The

appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,36,800/-

along with 7.5% interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,

within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3362 of 2013 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The Tribunal is

directed to transfer the entire amount to the claimant by way of RTGS, within a

period of three weeks from the deposit or from the date of receipt of the Bank

details obtained for the claimant or application for withdrawal from the

claimant, whichever is later. No costs.

08.04.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

rst

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

To:

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Special Sub Judge, Krishnagiri.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.

rst

C.M.A.No.2974 of 2017

08.04.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in