Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Ayyappan on 19 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.7995 of 2021
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Trichy. ...Appellant
vs.
1. Ayyappan
2. Natarajan
3. The Branch Manager ,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
50A, Pallivasal Street,
Perambalur (Dt) – 621 212. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2020 made
in M.C.O.P.No. 53 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Ariyalur.
Page No.1 of 8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr. D. Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Mr. R. Jayaprakash for R1
M/S. I. Malar for R3
No appearance for R2
*****
JUDGMENT
This Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging
the Award dated 02.11.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, in M.C.O.P.No.
53 of 2018, directing the Appellant/Transport Corporation to pay the
Claimant/First Respondent 50% of Rs.30,000/- (the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal) for the injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on
06.08.2013 involving the bus owned by the Appellant/Transport
Corporation.
2. Before the Tribunal, the First Respondent/Claimant claimed a sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. On the
side of the First Respondent/Claimant, P.W.1 was examined as witness and
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
Exs.P1 to P9 were marked before the Tribunal. On the side of the
Appellant/Transport Corporation, no witness was examined and no exhibit
was marked.
3. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as
compensation to the First Respondent/Claimant, out of which 50% was
directed to be payable by the Appellant/Transport and remaining 50% was
directed to be payable by the Third Respondent/Insurance Company.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material documents available on record.
5. The Appellant has challenged the impugned award on the
ground that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider the F.I.R which has
been registered against the driver of the Tata Sumo, in which the Claimant
was travelling. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has
erroneously fixed 50% negligence on the side of the Appellant/Transport
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
Corporation and the overall compensation awarded to the Claimant is very
high and the same needs to be reduced.
6. Insofar as the first contention raised by the Appellant is
concerned, though F.I.R has been registered against the driver of the Tata
Sumo, from Exs.R1 &R2 -Rough sketch, it is clear that the accident
occurred not only due to the negligence on the part of the vehicle travelled
by the Claimant, but also on the part of the driver of the Transport
Corporation. By taking note of the fact that the Appellant's vehicle is a
heavy vehicle and the major loss would be caused to TATA SUMO vehicle
in which the Claimant was travelling,as it is lighter one, had rightly fixed
negligence on both the vehicles. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, fixing joint liability on the Appellant/Transport
Corporation & 3rd Respondent/ Insurance company is perfectly right and
the same needs to be confirmed.
7. Considering the fact that the Claimant has sustained injuries in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
accident which is evident from Ex.P3-eye hospital certificate, Ex.P4-
Discharge summary, Ex-P6-Electro cardiogram report and on finding that
the Claimant has taken treatment in the year of 2017-18, but the accident
had occurred in the year of 2013, nearly after five years, the Tribunal has
not considered the fact that the eye defects of the Claimant has occurred
only on account of the accident. Therefore the Claims Tribunal has rightly
awarded the overall compensation of the Claimant at Rs.30,000/- which this
Court feels meagre and the same need not be interfered with.
8. On Scrutinizing the nature of injuries sustained by the First
Respondent/Claimant, the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the Respondent/Claimant at Rs.30,000/-, cannot be considered
to be excessive, as alleged by the Appellant/ Transport Corporation. For the
foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this Appeal and
accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. The Appellant/Transport Corporation and the Insurance
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
company/third respondent are directed to deposit 50% each of the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of
realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit
being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the Award amount directly
to the Bank account of the First Respondent/Claimant through RTGS,
within a period of two weeks.
19.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
(arr)/(shk)
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
To:
1. The Motor accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and sessions Judge
Ariyalur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1523 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(arr)/(shk)
C.M.A. No.1523 of 2021
19.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
