Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Minor Srinath on 19 April, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 19.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD) No.542 of 2009
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited.
Karaikudi. ..Respondent/Appellant
vs.
Minor Srinath
represented by his mother and natural guardian,
Murugeswari. ..Petitioner/Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2006,
dated 5.6.2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram.
For Appellant :Mr.N.Asaithambi
For Respondent :Mr.P.Muthusamy
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport
Corporation questioning the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tribunal(Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Ramanathapuram passed in
M.C.O.P.No..86 of 2006, dated 5.6.2007.
2.The facts in brief are that:
The respondent herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.5 lakhs for the injury sustained by him in the accident which had taken place
on 28.02.2006. He would allege that at 4.30 p.m. on the date of accident, he
was returning to his house by walking in Madurai-Rameswaram Highways. When
he reached near Pillaiyar Koil bus stop, the bus bearing Registration No. TN 63
N 0500 came in a high speed and hit against him. In the accident, he had
sustained fracture on the left leg and injuries all over the body. Immediately
he was removed to Ramanathapuram Government Hospital. From where, he
was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai. He took treatment as
inpatient from 28.2.2006 to 23.5.2006. In the operation, his right leg below knee
was removed.
3.In the counter filed by the respondent, though the accident was
admitted, but it is their case that the vehicle was stopped at Pillaiyar Koil Bus
Stop. At that time, the injured without noticing the bus, had admittedly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
crossed the road from right side to left side and in that process, he hit against
the bus and sustained injuries. It is stated that the injured was responsible for
the accident and for his negligence, the transport Corporation cannot be made
liable to pay the compensation.
4.During trial, the parties have let in oral and documentary evidence.
After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the bus had
caused the accident and hence they are liable to pay the total compensation of
Rs.1,13,300/- along with interest at 7.5% pa. Challenging the same, the present
Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and examined the
materials available on record.
6.The claimant was a school-going student. At the relevant point of
time, he was aged about 7 years. As stated above, the accident is not disputed
by the appellant. P.W.3 was examined as an eye-witness to the incident and he
narrated the accident in his evidence. It is further seen that he is an auto driver
and he had taken the injured to the hospital after the accident and on the basis
of his complaint, a case was registered against the driver of the bus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.In support of the oral evidence of P.W.3, the claimant marked Ex.P2-
Observation Mahazar, Ex.P3-Sketch, Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and
Ex.P6-Final Report filed before the Criminal Court. The appellant examined the
Conductor of the bus as R.W.1. The Tribunal found that there was a crowd in
the bus at the time of accident and therefore the Conductor of the bus could
not have seen the accident. Further, taking note of the fact that the driver of
the bus was not examined, the Tribunal had disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1
and on the basis of the materials produced by the claimant, it has been held
that due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the accident had taken
place.
8.The mother of the injured has stated in her evidence as P.W.1 that in
view of the fracture sustained in the right leg, the Doctor had amputated the
right leg of the claimant below knee. P.W.2 Doctor Sahaya Stephen Raj
examined the claimant and after perusing the records has given a Certificate
that the claimant had suffered 75% disability. So it is evident from the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries in the
accident and his right leg was also amputated. However, the Tribunal has taken
the disability at 60% and awarded Rs.60,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.
60,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering. Rs.15,000/- was fixed as notional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
income of the claimant and by applying multiplier '15', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,35,000/- towards loss of earning power. Though Rs.50,000/- has
to be spent once in three years for change of artificial leg, but the Tribunal has
disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 has awarded Rs.50,000/- in total for change
of artificial leg. Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for transportation and
extra nourishment respectively Another Rs.300/- was awarded for damage to
clothe. The Tribunal eventually held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.
3,13,300/-. Taking note of the fact that the claimant was 7 year old at the time
of accident and he lost his right leg at the very young age, the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot said to be exorbitant or
excessive. So the award amount and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is
hereby confirmed.
9.At the time of filing of the claim petition, the claimant was a minor,
aged 7 years and by now, he would have attained majority and hence the
respondent/claimant is declared as a major.
10.For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and
the same stands dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire
award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.
19.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD) No.542 of 2009
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
